trying to evict adult stepchild

[DionneEz]

This is my dilemma. The property is a marital home with my husband from whom I am now separated.

Before the separation, his adult son (21) was living with us. My husband has now left the property but insists that his adult son remain with me. This has been nearly 2 years.

At first I was accommodating, as my husband still pays half the mortgage, I pay all of the bills.

The stepson living here was not an issue at first, but now I can no longer cope as he basically stays indoors on his phone all day. The only time he comes out of his room is to collect his Ubereats.

I asked him about getting a job and contributing something financially towards the bills and I was given a story about how he was freelancing from home...and that his pay was intermittent.
However, I see the receipts for his Ubereats orders and they amount to about £20 daily, which is about £500 a month. When he does leave the house, he takes a £7 cab to the station when he can get the bus, which costs £2 or even walk as it is only 10 mins away...so clearly he has funds to splurge but he doesn't feel he has to contribute to the running of the house since his father owns half.

So the scenario is that I have a nearly 22-year-old man 24/7 in my house who refuses to lift a finger to do anything in terms of chores and doesn't contribute financially. I recently had to stop him using my toothpaste and bath soap because I was like you can buy your own surely.
I do go into the office 3 times a week and have errands and stuff to run on weekends but will come back to clean my house as this guy does absolutely nothing. When I was on hols for 3 weeks, he didn't even take the bins out. Yet his father insists that as he owns the house as well., he has every right to dictate who lives there. Is this true?

Anyway, I have given stepson notice even though he is not a tenant. The notice has now passed but he is still here and has no intention of leaving. I know the next step is to change the locks when he leaves which is rare but can his father come and let him in again and will I be breaking any laws if I lock the father out as well? Father doesn't live there and does not pay any bills..just half the mortgage but as the resident homeowner shouldn't my rights surpass his?

He has permission from the legal owner. That's all he needs.

Of course he can be made to leave - via court proceedings.

You can repeat this as often as you like. It won’t make it any more true. Legally an owner can give permission for a third party to live in a property unless there is a court order saying otherwise. With that permission, the third party does have the right to live there.

The OP has been told multiple times what to do to get this person out - either get an Occupation Order or finalise the divorce. Suggesting anyone has said she’s stuck with him no matter what is simply untrue. Those of us who know the law are just advising her on the legal way to get the SS out and keep him out.

For whatever reason (possibly because her ex has been unusually generous in continuing to pay the mortgage and by not forcing her to pay him his share of the equity), the OP is refusing to follow the legal route. Many of the suggestions made are not legal and run the risk of the ex retaliating.

That is really crappy, behavior and law-wise.

Are you new to the internet?

It absolutely is. Morally, the SS should move out. The problem is, people on this thread are confusing the way they think the law should be with the way the law actually is - something I see quite often on Mumsnet. The law as it stands says both owners have the right to allow 3rd parties to live in the house unless there is a court order to the contrary (subject to legislation, e.g. no HMOs without a licence).

Legally an owner can give permission for a third party to live in a property unless there is a court order saying otherwise. With that permission, the third party does have the right to live there.

@CandidHedgehog How does it work with bills? That’s the part that I don’t understand - yes, the husband can give his permission for his son to live in the property, but how can he force the non-consenting co-owner to pay the bills?

Yes, but since he's not a tenant the OP has no obligation to ensure the house is suitable for him to inhabit. If she wants to cut off his access to electricity and water on the grounds that he's not contributing to the bills, she can do so.

He can argue the mortgage payment (which is at least £1,000 a month) covers rent for the SS’s room plus keep.

The OP doesn’t have to accept the situation - she has various legal routes she can take - but none of them involve her living in the house by herself while the husband continues to cover half the mortgage. Which is what she seems to want.

That's useful to know, that all the owners need to agree to a tenancy agreement. Actually, I will check that and come back.

To be fair I haven't discussed utilities etc. only the legal ownership.

It's all a bit petty and childish. If his father was that way inclined he can sign up to a new electricity contract as the legal owner. Perhaps move back in himself. It serves no purpose whatsoever to get into a tit for tat. Why poke the bear who has previously been abusive?

The OP needs to progress this formally via court.. I suspect there is a reason she hasn't after this length of time but it's simply dragging out the inevitable.

No he can’t. OP doesn’t see any of that money. It goes towards her ex keeping up his half of the mortgage so that he keeps his interest in the house. It can’t be both that and his sons rent and keep.

I think it's totally reasonable for her not to want to pay the bills of another adult who has absolutely nothing to do with her anymore.

If neither he nor his father are willing to pay for his share of the bills, cutting off his access to utilities is a drastic but most likely effective way of getting him to either move out or start contributing.

But the OP should be careful what she wishes for. If she wants sole occupation she should be covering the full amount of the mortgage or paying her ex an amount of rent proportionate to his share of the property. If her stepson moves out her ex may stop paying his share of the mortgage, which will be messy all round.

He doesn’t need to pay half the mortgage. He doesn’t live there.

The Family Court almost always (if the matter gets to court) offset the rent the occupying spouse owes the non-occupying spouse against the share of the mortgage owed by the non-occupying spouse. Basically, the occupying spouse pays the whole mortgage in lieu of rent.

He will get exactly the same amount of equity whether he pays the mortgage or not. That’s how a divorce works.

Edited to say: The only reason the court would expect the ex to continue paying is because he is keeping a benefit from the property by using it to house his son. The son moves out, no more mortgage payment and unless there are other family assets to cover the ex’s share of the equity or the OP can get a mortgage big enough to buy him out, the court will order the house sold.

He has no obligation to pay the mortgage without a court order.

He retains his ownership regardless of the mortgage if he named on the title deed. The bank does not care who pays as long as the payment is made. The mortgage company would simply chase the OP for the entire amount.

This is exactly why the situation cannot he allowed to continue and the OP must apply to court.

No he can't. Covering his share of the mortgage is maintaining his interest in the property. As such, he's entitled to live in the property himself or allow his son to live there. But continuing to pay the mortgage (as per the terms of their agreement with their lender) doesn't mean he gets free utilities thrown in. If he were living there he'd have to pay his share of the bills, so his son should be doing likewise.

He doesn’t need to ‘maintain his interest in the property’ by paying the mortgage. The OP could have paid 100% of the mortgage from the moment he moved out and the ex will still get exactly the same % of the value of the house (unless there are other assets and the court adjusts the settlement accordingly).

Whaddaya know, this situation is too rare and too complicated to be advised by any reputable online source.

That's not how it works I'm afraid.

He's a legal owner. He does not have to keep paying to maintain his interest.

Sigh.

Owning a property is independent of paying the mortgage on it.

Also, this isn’t a tenancy so anything relating to tenancies is likely to be irrelevant anyway. Instead, the SS is at most a lodger (if the mortgage payment counts as ‘rent’) or possibly not even that if it doesn’t. Either way, one owner can give permission for him to stay without a court order to the contrary.

I didn't say he does.

I said that the OP doesn't have to provide her stepson with electricity, hot water or internet access.

No, but she also can’t stop her ex getting an electrician / plumber to remove any locks she’s put on the electrics / hot water and turning them back on.

Internet can easily be hotspotted.

Yes, I know. That's not the point I was making.

The point I was making is that him continuing to pay the mortgage is utterly irrelevant to his son's share of the bills.

His son's presence in the house means that he is still occupying his share of it and the OP won't owe him any occupation rent when their divorce is finally settled. That's the trade off.

But the son has absolutely no entitlement to use electricity, hot water or internet that he isn't paying for, and since he isn't a legal tenant he has no rights of any kind if the OP decides to stop subsidising him.

You said at 21.05 " covering his share of the mortgage is maintaining his interest". Myself and another poster pointed out he doesn't have to.

It would be easier for her ex to just pay his son's share of the bills though.

The four computers plus PlayStation suggests he's a gamer with the kind of internet usage that can't be easily hotspotted.