It's ours not mine - or is it?

If your partner had just paid rent I wouldn't say they were automatically entitled to anything, as they'd have paid rent living anywhere and not expected anything at the end.

However the amount they've contributed to renovations etc IS relevant, IMO, as I see that as more of a 'stake' in the property.

I also agree with PP who said your relative's wishes are relevant here, have you asked them about your partner being named?

I was in this position & was glad that I kept it in my name as DP cheated after 16 years & is now Ex. You can leave it to him in your will & then it makes no difference.

14 years! If i was your dp I would be absolutely heartbroken if the house wasnt shared. However I am assuming it's a serious long term relationship very similar in outlook to being married but perhaps your relationship it not like that and you are much more independent from each other?

personally I wouldn't live with someone that long without the serious legal commitment of marriage.

Is there a reason you aren't married?

Honestly, I think morally it's 50/50 since you've paid for it 50/50. Legally it will be yours if your relative transfers it into your sole name. Why aren't you married? Any other assets or children to consider? If you split in 10 years and had to give him 50% of the value could you afford to buy him out? Does he have a good enough income to accrue decent savings once the rent payments stop? Do you see this as a rest of your life relationship? Does he have a pension that's bigger than yours? Different earning capacity?

If you go 50/50 you could lose your home in the event of a split but your partner HAS contributed to this so perhaps rightly so. One version shafts him and the other puts your security in doubt

Really hard to call but I would go with security

After 14 years of paying and upkeep and "I am being gifted the house because we have paid so much in rent and what we have done to it." I would absolutely want to be on the deeds too. I would be happy to do 1/3 vs 2/3.

Unless there's other factors, I'd go 50/50. He needs security just as much as you. Even if you did split, would you want him left homeless?

Do you have children? Has one of you been put at a disadvantage in any way by providing for children or eachother?

You said someone made bad financial decisions, was that you? And your partner has then been stuck renting when they could have purchased if it wasn't for your debt or whatever?

Does this mean that your partner no longer needs to pay rent? If that is the case, can you support them in putting their money aside and saving for a deposit for their own place if they feel very strongly about owning property (if they could get a mortgage that is)
But no, I don't think it is 'our' house, it is 'your' house, a gift to you from your family. That is a bitter pill for your partner perhaps, and they might not like it much, but you do need to think of yourself and keep your asset as yours. You never know when you might need it most.

Not necessarily.

If they are not married then it should stay in op's name.

not necessarily true.

In OP case its more complex but courts take into account multiple things especially if a house was inheritance, family gift or bought before the marriage. The non named person would have to PROVE they have an interest in the house such as having paid a mortgage, added value, are vulnerable and dependent, are the main caregiver of a child with interest in the house or have taken a hit to their personal finances for family reasons that benefited both making them dependent (like quitting/reducing work to be SAHP to save on childcare etc...).

Getting married doesn't automatically make everything you own individually magically becomes 50/50 for no reason. You can straight up disinherit a spouse from your house that you own outright.

If you split will your family member be upset that you've lost half the house?

That's why I said it depends on the circumstances. But experience has taught me to be very cautious.
My friend gifted her son and his partner a substantial amount of money(more or less all her savings) so they could buy a house. They broke up about a year later and the partner who had contributed nothing had half of the sale from the house.

Don't be foolish, put it in your name. If you stay together then it's irrelevant isn't it. If you split you can choose how much to give him, if anything, at the time.

It's a gift to you, you haven't bought it jointly. Whatever you decide doesn't change that.

There are some variables here.

But the most important one is, what does the person gifting the house want?

I just think it’s a bit of an “f you”…if you were bad financially and that stopped your partner from being able to get a mortgage and on the property ladder to then basically step over them and get the house gifted to just you!

Who has paid for the rent and renovations.
Really, it is yours but if your partner has paid thpusands and spent countless hours doing the works then I would think he is due something.

The family member would have been taxed on the rent paid (unless it wasn’t declared) so if they had a mortgage they might not have actually gained much financially because the mortgage isn’t taken into account as an expense. So I don’t think what your partner has jointly contributed to rent is relevant.

A family member wants to gift you a house. That is for you not your partner unless you are married.

Also I’m in the process of trying to gift a house to my son and it’s very complex and I will have to pay about £29,000 in capital gains tax so make sure your family member is aware of that. They would hand giving you a house but would land themselves with a big tax bill.

It a gift to you, not your partner. They don't accrue a share in it by having paid rent to your relative. 100% in your name. Presumably you won't be charging them rent in future, so they get a little windfall too to invest how they wish.

I have thought about this a lot, as I'd like to help my DS with a house purchase.

My conclusion is that if I do it, it will need to be a gift to both of them, as I can't see a realtionship being successful if they are living in a house, which they are both responsible for day to day, but which only one has any financial stake in.

If they marry, putting it in his name only would have no impact anyway, and once it's in his name, it's his to do with as he sees fit anyway, and for the sake of the realtionship, that's probably to put it in both names.

The thing I cannot get my head around is that you were willing to do a joint mortgage but due to either yourself or your partner’s credit rating, you are unable to do this. You obviously years ago considered a joint mortgage/property together.

So now I do not understand why years later and I could be talking 10 or 20 years now that you’ve been paying rent on this property equally with your partner you are now unsure about putting their name on the deeds.

If you have paid off 50% of what the house is valued at you obviously haven’t only been renting for a few years together. This seems like quite a long-term relationship to me. It would probably be a dealbreaker for me if I was in your partners position. Renting together for years and years 50-50 to be suddenly told “it’s all mine and your name can’t go on it” would be it for me.

If you are happy in your relationship and you have been together long term, and I mean long term then I do believe the right thing is to put their name on it

Agree with most that you should leave it in your name only. As another poster suggested, you can provide security for DP through your will. I am guessing it is DP who made poor financial decisions in the past so that’s another reason not to put him on the Deeds.