Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

AIBU to not want my ILs to control our finances?

253 replies

SweetChilliSauce · 01/06/2012 22:00

This is my first ever post so please bear with me if you can ? apologies for the length but I?m trying to avoid drip feeding.

DP?s parents own two houses. The house they live in (DP?s childhood home) and the house that belonged to DP?s grandmother, which they inherited when she sadly passed away a number of years ago. DP?s grandmother?s house has been in their family for around 100 years so it is owned outright ? no mortgage. The house had been empty since she died.

When DP and I found out we were expecting DS, his parents were incredibly generous and offered us the opportunity to move in to the empty house and live there for 5 years, rent free. This was, they said, to give us a chance to save for a mortgage, and not be under financial pressure to have both of us working full time whilst DS was little. We knew that this was an amazing opportunity and very kind of them, and we gratefully accepted. We have been here for nearly two years now.

The house was in need of a substantial amount of work, but we were more than happy to put in the time and the money to make a home for ourselves and give ourselves a chance to pay off debt / save when the work was done. In financial terms, the project cost us around the same as what we would have paid in rent for a year, and I worked hard renovating the house both whilst I was pregnant (we were trying to complete the work before the birth so I did this full time instead of working) and for some months after the birth. DP?s parents also contributed financially to the project, as did mine. We didn?t ask either sets of parents for this help, but they offered, and we were very thankful.

I am pretty good at handling finances, and have been looking after mine and DP?s budget and outgoings for quite a while (I do this because DP doesn?t want to, and I do enjoy a good spreadsheet(!) ? the arrangement works well enough for us). We have certainly had odd periods where we have overspent but we have learnt from them, and we?ve been on an even keel (paying off credit cards / overdrafts and saving money) for a good while now. We know how much we have to save in order to put down a deposit on a mortgage, and are working on target towards this. We are responsible and everything is budgeted for.

Recently, despite the original agreement under which we moved in, DP?s parents have told us that they now require us to pay them £100 a week, which they will ?look after? for us. They have said that they ?do not believe we will save for a mortgage if it is left to us?, and thus need to control the figure of £100 a week paid to them and have it resting in an account to which they and DP (not myself) have access, though DP is not to touch it without their say so.

I feel really uncomfortable with this arrangement. I could almost understand it if they were saying they had changed their mind and now wanted us to pay rent on the house (but would be a little Hmm as that wasn?t the agreement under which we moved in and carried out all the work), but the idea of someone other than DP and I controlling our savings does not sit well with me.

I think that our savings should be in our savings account. This is mostly because it is simply our money, but also because it leaves me in a financially vulnerable position if DP and I were to break up (which I hope to God never happens, and don?t foresee happening, but I guess nothing is ever certain) as none of the money would be in my name. DP and I have just always had ?our money? ? we?ve never been divisive.

I also think we should decide for ourselves how much we are saving, rather than having the figure dictated to us. At the end of the day, we're the ones that face the consequences if we frittered away our cash. We are currently putting away about £60-70 a week and we really are living on a shoe string to do so ? if we gave £100 a week to his parents we would have nothing left in the pot after bills to buy anything that wasn?t the weekly food shop, whether that was some babygrows for DS, a new workshirt for me, a haircut for DP, taking DS to the farm... everything. When I told my ILs they said we could ?ask? them for our money back to buy whatever the item was that we required.

I just don?t want to live like this. I know we are capable of just spending what we need and putting the rest into savings (not least because that's what we've been doing) ? I don?t want to go and have to ask my inlaws for our own money every time I need to buy myself some tights. I have tried to explained this to them but they don?t seem to see the problem. I certainly don?t want to have to ask their permission and for our own money if DP and I want to go out for dinner or something else that?s just for ?enjoyment? (FWIW we?ve been out for dinner once this year so far...).

This is really stressing me out and it?s starting to cause problems between DP and I. If I?d have know at the outset that in order to live in the house we?d have to let DP?s parents control our finances and savings then I?d have said thanks but no thanks ? it is just not a situation that I would be happy with under any circumstances. It feels really controlling and belittling.

AIBU to not want to do this? I think, really, that I would much rather we moved out and made a go of it on our own ? paying rent and saving for a mortgage at the same time like everyone else, even though it would obviously take longer. AIBU?

OP posts:
MeCookGoodSock · 08/06/2012 10:18

OMG! My apologies OP. I got my wires crossed. Blush I take back my horrible comment.

oopsi · 08/06/2012 10:50

Triggles- you keep on and on repeating the same things about council tax renovations and insurance.The PILs wanted to demolish the house in which case there would have been no renovations, council tax or insurance to pay

and frankly it is very unhelpful to advise the Op to tell her PILs where to get off, when realistically they have no viable alternative.Her DP has access to the money and in the eyes of teh law it is his money, he earned it and she is not his spouse.he is not married so no claim on her DPs

I am still puzzled by all these ' renovations'.she mentions carpets and wallpaper.Presumable the grandmother would have had carpets and curtains.Why not just clean those up and paint the walls with 'own brand emulsion where needed.I think the Op wanted the house all spec'd out instead of making do with what was there.I have had to move into shit holes which we have bought cheap and done up as and when we could afford to.

geegee888 · 08/06/2012 10:57

Your problems would appear to be solved by moving out and renting another house. Fair enough, you wouldn't be able to save that money towards a deposit, but since the controlling aspect of living in someone else's house rent free, and the conditions being attached to that, are what is upsetting you, surely paying for your accommodation (as most people have to) is the obvious solution?

I can't believe you are contemplating staying in this unsatisfactory situation for another 3 years. It sounds unbearable!

Saving £100 a week for 3 years is going to give you around a 14k deposit. And it sounds like you will only be able to afford a mortgage with payments of around £400 a month maximum. Which gives you a likely purchase price of around £120,000 or thereabouts. Is this do-able in your area?

The original agreement seemed to be that you lived there rent-free for 5 years, and saved the money you were not paying in rent towards a deposit. In two years, no start seems to have been made in saving the deposit, and with free accommodation (lots of people have to spend money on houses they move into) I'm surprised you've still not paid off your debts.

I'm also still surprised that you gave up your job to renovate someone else's house, and not surprised you are struggling to get back on the career ladder. I wonder whether your DP's parents think you are not committed to saving and see the free house scenario as continuing ad infinitum, and the change to the original agreement is simply meant to get you to stick to it, ie saving towards the deposit for a house.

unitarian · 08/06/2012 11:11

If the ILs have moved the goalposts then perhaps the OPs parents can do the same.

They contributed to the renovations in good faith and with no expectation of return in order to help their DD and DGC have a decent roof over their heads.

Now the ILs have a more valuable property as a result and the OP is being forced into a precarious personal financial position.

Perhaps the OPs parents can now insist that their contribution be converted into hard cash and placed in an account solely in their DD's name.

MeCookGoodSock · 08/06/2012 11:12

I'm getting the impression that OP feels that simply because she has had a child with her DP and lives with him that she is now entitled to the perks that come with marriage. DP's earnings are her earnings because she stays at home with DCs. OP, do you and your DP have plans to marry? Because until then, you are living on the generosity of your DP and his parents. What is/has been your financial contribution towards all this, and what will your contribution be toward the £100 a week the parents are now asking for? Is it your money or your DP's money that will be going toward this? And do you know if your DP is in on the suggestion his parents have made because perhaps he too sees you spending and not saving?

anonacfr · 08/06/2012 11:14

Hang on, didn't the OP mention that her ILs are now planning on moving into the newly renovated house and selling their own home instead? Sounds like they got a great deal out of it.
And the OP and her BF still have two years left on the schedule to save up for a deposit - which sounds reasonably feasible.

I don't see why the ILs feel they have any right to take her money from her.

MeCookGoodSock · 08/06/2012 11:21

SweetChilliSauce wrote
And yes, the plan was always that it was time limited and we would move out after 5 years. We would be the ones having to go back to renting if we didn't get enough together for a deposit. It's only us that would suffer, and of course we don't want to do that.

So the question regarding the renovations is pertinent to this. OP, what renovations did you do? Were they cosmetic or was it necessary work that could not be avoided? How much did you spend un-necessarily on the house that could have/should have gone toward a deposit?

Empusa · 08/06/2012 11:40

"DP's earnings are her earnings because she stays at home with DCs. OP, do you and your DP have plans to marry? Because until then, you are living on the generosity of your DP and his parents. What is/has been your financial contribution towards all this"

Hmm

Her financial contribution is the saving they make on not paying for childcare and the fact that her DP is able to work full time while she does the childcare.

She is not "living on the generosity" of anyone. You make it sound like she is freeloading. Is that honestly how you view women you do all the childcare?

MeCookGoodSock · 08/06/2012 11:43

Empusa, no, that' how I see the OP, and I came to that conclusion by reading this thread.

unitarian · 08/06/2012 11:44

By accepting the original terms the couple have got themselves trapped in a rural situation distant from his work and where she can't find work. They wouldn't be the only couple ever to have discovered that renovation work tends to go over budget but, in this case, they don't get the monetary gain from the improvements, except by living rent free for 5 years - and this agreement is being reneged upon.
She has a child under two, has worked on the renovation and is seeking paid work now. She's not behaving irresponsibly and is handling her DPs earnings sensibly to pay off some joint debts and save for their future together.

What she hasn't done so far is protect her own personal financial position.

Empusa · 08/06/2012 11:45

Luckily mecook the majority of the people reading this thread have not reached that conclusion. I feel your opinion is hugely outnumbered.

MeCookGoodSock · 08/06/2012 11:49

I wasn't aware this was a popularity contest?

I stand by my view.

anonacfr · 08/06/2012 12:01

I don't get how anyone could see the OP as a freeloader. She was working full time but her and her partner decided she would temporarily stay at home while her son was little.
In the meantime she has been working on the house the whole time.

She's not exactly been sitting on her arse in a spotless house living on her IL's generosity.

How is she different from a 'regular' SAHM?

MeCookGoodSock · 08/06/2012 12:17

She decided to stay at home once they were offered free rent. Speaks volumes to me, but ignore that if you want.

Empusa · 08/06/2012 12:22

"I worked hard renovating the house both whilst I was pregnant (we were trying to complete the work before the birth so I did this full time instead of working)"

"his parents were incredibly generous and offered us the opportunity to move in to the empty house and live there for 5 years, rent free. This was, they said, to give us a chance to save for a mortgage, and not be under financial pressure to have both of us working full time whilst DS was little."

And it's us who are choosing to ignore things?

NoobytheWaspSlayer · 08/06/2012 12:26

So you can only be a SAH parent if you are married? Otherwise you are freeloading off your partner if you don't work and care for your children?

WTAF?

Confused
MeCookGoodSock · 08/06/2012 12:26

What was the work she was trying to complete. Major works, or cosmetic? That's the bit I've not ignored. We still don't know. The OP wont say. Why?

Portofino · 08/06/2012 12:32

Why is it relevant? The question is whether or not the PIL's should take over their finances.

MeCookGoodSock · 08/06/2012 12:36

Last response and I have to go. Life beckons. And I seem to be answering instead of the OP, so I will hand back to her, if you all don't mind.

It's relevant because the parents changed the goal posts because no savings have been made in 2 years which was agreed from the get go.

I've already said the parents mistake was to call it a savings. They should have simply charged £400 rent a month from the get go and put it aside as a deposit for their son without saying anything in the first place. Then there would be no feelings of entitlement and resentment.

oopsi · 08/06/2012 14:06

i am still wondering who is looking after her son /footing the childcare bill while she goes off and does her unpaid work for two days per week

bochead · 08/06/2012 14:25

Waspslayer. They aren't married - many of the older generation won't treat her with the same respect or consideration shown to a wife, neither would a court.

We may find it hard to accept but unmarried mothers do not have the same "social status" as married women. Life isn't fair or even just.

Marriage is a legal contract designed to PROTECT women. The "common law wife" is a dangerous myth, that lulls far too many women into a dangerous totaly false security. I'm old enough to have witnessed a few, very nice unmarried women lose EVERYTHING after decades of devotion to a live-in relationship.

As a lone parent myself, I bitterly resent this, but it doesn't change the way the real world still works. I had to return to work when my own pfb was 6 weeks old and to this day am just so grateful I could.

My advice to any future daughter or younger female relative would be that she needs to secure either a means to support herself totally independently of the father or a marriage certificate before having a child & living in property belonging to her partner (or his family in this case). It's not advice I'd enjoy giving, but the word can be a very harsh, cruel place for the unprepared.

The OP has put hersef in an incredibly vulnerable position.

ClaireBunting · 08/06/2012 14:33

Wise words, Bochead.

Good point about the attitudes and formality of the older generation.

I know it took quite a few years before my MIL would engage me directly in any serious topic, and we were married from the start, so I did have the status.

And if, God forbid, my DS and his GF were to have an oopsie, I imagine I would negotiate with him rather than the both of them. Until she was a full member of the family.

OhNoMyFanjo · 08/06/2012 15:30

I can't shake a feeling tgat there is something you haven't been told, there is something tgat has made them change their minds.

ElephantsStreetParty · 08/06/2012 15:32

Carrying on someone else's idea (and read through to the end, it starts slightly toungue-in-cheek):

Tell them that you agree, their son is not the best with money and you both agree that putting money into a savings account neither of you can readily access is a very good idea. Thank them for the idea. However, seeing as how your parents have, like them, spent money on the house but, unlike your DP's parents, will have nothing back from this (ie they don't own the house, so won't get back their investment when it's sold) you and your DP have decided that it's only fair that they get the account. Therefore, you will save £100 each week into an account in their name. However, they (DP's parents) are too rest assured that it will all be above board etc, and that there will be signed papers saying that the paper belongs to you and DP jointly, so that a) they (your parents) can't spend the money, b) it goes to you (+DP +DS) if they die and c) if you and DP split he will get their share. The account will be in your parents' names only - neither you nor DP will be named holders.

I'd love to see their reaction to that!

bochead · 08/06/2012 15:34

Fanjo - that's what scares me too, the person most impacted is so often the last to know Sad

Swipe left for the next trending thread