Should his girlfriend pay rent?

My DH earned significantly more than me so I didn't pay for anything. As I earned more I paid half the bills (food, electricity etc) but I never paid any rent. If he's struggling to pay it, then she could pay a nominal amount, something what a lodger would.

What misogynistic crap.

I wouldn't want my son profiting off a women who should be putting the money towards her own future.

Why on earth is it okay for the OP to advise her son to protect HIS asset by not having a shared mortgage but fine for him to profit off a women by having her pay towards an asset that becomes solely his? If the house is his, he pays for it.

The only fair way forwards is for her to pay solely towards bills and living expenses and to put her remaining monies into savings so she can buy her own property.

After all this is supposed to be a woman he loves and cherishes. He should want her to have the same level of security as him should they part. The fact he sees the relationship as so transactional and is already looking at how to lock her out of financial security rather than considering her wellbring is very concerning. She's just a cash cow to him.

No doubt he won't have the same reservations about using her for housework, wife work and risking her health giving birth.

Also to man up and marry her.

And the house ends up entirely his. The mother's acting as if he's doing her a favour but in fact, he's offering her crumbs.

No rent. He marries her, then she lives with him. He's very greedy. Woman , bed partner and she has to pat rent. Not in my world

I wouldn't move into the house if I was her. She's living with him now, but he doesn't want to buy a house with her.

In that case, just charge her for the bills only and food of course.

He's going to have to pay his own mortgage.If he doesn't want her to have a claim on it.

Because they are not married, have no children and are both able-bodied with full-time jobs. She earns more but it’s not her responsibility to bear the entire cost of housing them both!

Both of them benefit from the current living arrangements. She is better off than she would be without him living there because she is able to save the money he gives her. He is better off because he gives her much less than he would be paying anywhere else for rent. They also both benefit from sharing bills of course.

If he gave her nothing, he would be the main beneficiary of the arrangement. The reason she could afford the flat was because we gave her a big deposit. We did that to help her, not to enable him to live rent free!

Why can’t she save it? Is she not to be trusted?

It doesn’t benefit both of them. It benefits him. If they split up, she would have no asset.

I think that's sensible.

To me it is fair if she pays ‘rent’ and he saves it. If and when they get married and get a mortgage together that is then her contribution. My husband took lower than market rent from me (we were sharing a room of course, but it was a 3 bed, so I paid £500pm which in our area was good value for me) and did it as an overpayment on the mortgage (although I think this isn’t the best idea as maybe I’d have had a claim) but saving it and then paying later - no need to tell her this- will mean they can have an equal share in married life)

OP of course she should pay something, can you imagine being advised to let a boy friend more in rent free?
and of course it’s ok for your ds to ask for advise, there was a thread here the other day and a dd and renting of in-laws and there wasn’t much suggestion that the op shouldn’t be be asking for advice.

He should seek legal advice, and she should either pay for bills, and or some food as a contribution, and then save the reminder for herself, and I guess if that doesn’t suit her she should stay put. No one would move into my home rent free.

You can't compare paying towards the mortgage of someone you are supposed to be in an equal, loving partnership with to paying rent to a landlord who offers you a legally binding contract with all the rights and protection that offers.

Security and equal footing in the relationship is more important than the money, imo. It's either his house and she can choose to live there for the benefit of cheaper living costs but with the risk of being made homeless or it is their house, they both pay the mortgage and they both own a share of the equity and enjoy the legal protections being joint owners brings.

Great so we're setting her up as a cunt lodger? Why should she live rent free?

Personally I would go with she pays half a market rent, and he puts half of that away, and then if they split, he splits that 50% each. If they dont split is goes towards their house together.

He pays the mortgage, she pays all the bills. That way if they split, she can’t claim she’s been paying off his mortgage and try and stake a claim on the house

No rent, half the bills, split food costs, no maintenance and for her to save like crazy for her own asset.

I'd say that what you think is really irrelevant because if he's buying a house then your son is an adult who can manage his own affairs and finances.

I think you are wrong to expect your boyfriend's girlfriend to pay rent rather than have a share of the mortgage. If you and your son don't think the relationship has legs (a reasonable assumption since they've already split up once) then you should advise that they shouldn't live together until he is sure of the longevity of the relationship.

You certainly shouldn't compare her to a cocklodger when your son has told you that she, quite reasonably, wants to be on the mortgage. They can be tenants-in-common on the mortgage which will protect both their interests. It's a very simple solution designed precisely for a situation like this and I can't believe no-one has suggested it so far on the thread.

It’s not reasonable for her to live rent free and have considerably more money when her current alternative is to pay rent (and half the bills) elsewhere.

anyone saying they’d object to their daughter paying for someone else to build
up equity - what exactly do they think the position is with her current arrangement - she’s paying the build up equity for her existing landlord.

if she’s not in a position to pay 1/2 the mortgage if he ringfences his deposit then
she should pay 3/4 of the bills - as long as this is less than her current rent+bills she’s still better off. Who owns the mortgage on the house is a red herring, imo

How doesn’t it seem right that she has less money because she’s buying a house?

What possible reason would she have to rent? Either she pays no rent, or she pays a part of the mortgage with your son legally protecting what he puts in.

When I bought my first flat my DP moved in. He paid half of bills and most of the grocery shopping. I felt it would be extremely unfair to charge rent on a property I was building equity in. Plus in the event of a break up there is no question the other person has a claim on the property.

I don’t think your son Should charge rent. He can either buy alone and his GF just pays half or some bills, or he buys but they rent somewhere else together or he could get a deed of trust to protect his deposit and then an agreement to shares of equity based on contributions so they can jointly own the house. I would caution him against buying somewhere he’s stretching to afford though.

In my case my then DP saved up the money he was saving on rent and ended up put it towards a deposit when we eventually bought together. We’re now married and it all worked out well!

My daughter owns a flat (with mortgage). Her boyfriend has been living with her for two years. For the first year he had no income other than a student loan, while he was training as a teacher. He paid half of the bills (council tax, gas, electric etc) but no rent.

Now that he is earning, he pays a very small amount of rent, as well as half of the bills. It’s much less than he would be paying anywhere else, but it didn’t seem right that he should live rent free and have plenty of money to spend and save, while she was on a tighter budget, despite earning more, because of her mortgage.

I think in the next year they will be looking for somewhere bigger to buy together so at that point things will change.

You’ve presented two quite different scenarios - one is ‘he is stretching himself financially to get the mortgage he needs to pay for the right house which he views as a longterm investment’ and the other is she’s pushing him to buy this one and he’s concerned it’s a stretch. If it’s the latter, don’t but the house.

1. they are not yet stable and committed enough for her to be on the deeds
2. I’d say she should pay some rent, less than she does now so they are both better off, but this may be a relationship ender.
3. if he is stretched for cash to cover payments for the house he bought but wants her to live in, that’s not her problem. He shouldn’t expect her to carefully budget the groceries to keep his half down, have short showers to keep his half of the bills down, or not go out or she cover him because he doesn’t have the budget. That is not her problem if she’s not an owner.