Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Original poster

To ask for £900 per month

179 replies

Mumom0 · 17/09/2013 11:10

I had a 3.5 year relationship with a man with whom I have now split. I was a single parent working earning about 20 k and as I have 4 kids, also received £970 pm in WFTC. When he moved in I had to inform tax credits of his £35k earnings, therefore losing that money. I said he should pay me £900 per month so my family did not lose out ( this is after all what the govt consider I need to keep my family in basics ) .
He thought this was a lot, as with a previous partner they split the bills so only payed about £600 each towards outgoings.

Since we split he has implied that he kept us, which made me feel cross as I was independent before (admittedly relying on tax credits).

Was I unreasonable to expect him to make up the difference in lost benefits to support kids which are not his, or right to make sure I had money to provide for them?

Has anyone else been in this situation - what did you do?

OP posts:

angelos02 · 17/09/2013 11:47

You did well out of that arrangement. If I were him, I'd split the bills but that would be it. They weren't his kids.

ballinacup · 17/09/2013 11:51

I doubt he could support himself on £900 a month, so I think he did alright out of the deal. He still would have had £1300 a month left to spend on himself, which is not to be sniffed at.

If he didn't want to pay for someone else's children, he shouldn't have got into a relationship with a woman that already had kids.

Lweji · 17/09/2013 11:57

The problem is that by living together the government assumes that the person moving in will pool resources and will effectively support the children too.

So, I think it is very fair that he should have covered not only your loses but the extra costs of him living there.

In fact, he should have contributed to the overall costs in a similar percentage to his salary in relation to yours.

It feels like he wanted to move in to lower his living costs, though, and it was not about commitment to you and your family.

Keep that in mind if you decide to move in with a new partner.

(and, again, ignore this one)

MikeLitoris · 17/09/2013 12:03

if he didn't want to pay for someone else's children, he shouldn't have got into a relationship with a woman that already had kids.

Do not agree with that at all. My dp is in no way financially responsible for my dc. They have a mum and dad (ha) to support them.

Op I think this depends entirely on how much half of all bills are? If he was to pay half what would it have amounted to?

Lweji · 17/09/2013 12:39

But half the bills includes paying for the children too.

And the issue is that the government assumes there is a combined income of 55k. Meaning that resources would have been pooled.
Not fair, but why should any single mother lose out for having a partner?
Surely, he'd also contribute to the family (cleaning, cooking, driving). No?

You'd probably have been better off having a lodger than a living in partner.

SuperStrength · 17/09/2013 12:46

Does the benefit system take into account the amount of CSA paid by an ex partner?

hellsbellsmelons · 17/09/2013 12:48

I'm sorry but I really don't get, what people don't get.
She was living as a single parent.
Getting TC of £900 per month.
Her OH wanted to move in and in doing so makes her lose out on £900 per month so she asks him to pay that so that she is not out of pocket.
No problem there in my eyes.
As I'm sure we are all aware, she will still have been out of pocket if this was his only contribution.
Electricity, gas, washing, food, cooking etc......
YWNBU - but move on now and stop listening to him.
He's being an arse!

littlemisswise · 17/09/2013 12:53

No wonder it didn't last.

Original poster

Mumom0 · 17/09/2013 12:56

Thank you for thoughts, I have moved on, but this will be an issue again at some point and I can't be the only one in this situ so am interested in what is the right thing to do in this scenario.

His contribution was for everything including food, and was about £200 more than I put in for bills. The issue for me was that for it to be an equal contribution, I would have had quite a reduction in personal disposable income which I use for kids stuff and it seems unfair for them to lose out when a partner moves in.

OP posts:

ILikeBirds · 17/09/2013 13:03

Our household bills (mortgage, gas, electric, food council tax) as a couple total £900 ish, so not sure why people think he would be getting a good deal to only pay 900 as his share.

jacks365 · 17/09/2013 13:05

If he was paying in more than you then you were being unfair.

sydlexic · 17/09/2013 13:56

I think your terminology is clouding the issue here. Ignore the benefits.

You earn £20k and he earns 35 so perfectly fair contribution, does he do his fair share of household duties?

Personally I think sharing your life's means sharing everything. He should give everything and so should you, you then share what is left. The man that loves you will not be adding up the cost.

BoulevardOfBrokenSleep · 17/09/2013 14:08

"If my partner (who earns £35k) moves in with me, is it fair to ask him to pay £900/month towards household expenses?"

Yup. Leaves him £1300 a month to spend on himself.

Mentioning benefits just makes everyone judgy and angered up.

Pennyacrossthehall · 17/09/2013 14:11

....I was independent before (admittedly relying on tax credits).

No, it was just different people supporting you.

LadyInDisguise · 17/09/2013 14:15

When a partner moves on it is expected that both partners will contribute to the overall household spending. Hence the decrease in tax credit.

The issue arises when the partner moving in wants to pay have half of the rent/food/utility bills and not the bills re the dcs, which will add to quite a bit with 3 dcs.

Rather than saying, you need to pay for £900 that I lost on benefit, I would say that all expenses need to be shared and agree who is putting how much to the common pot to pay for everything incl the dcs.

Inertia · 17/09/2013 14:20

He should have paid more than £970 per month to be honest- it's not just the loss to your household income caused by him moving in, he will have created additional expenses such as extra food, hot water, electricity.

A fair thing to do would have been to split the bills according to ratio of earnings- which would have probably cost even more.

He had it easy. Ignore him.

JustBecauseICan · 17/09/2013 14:22

So he was contributing more than you to support your family and you wanted another £900 on top of that?

Eh?

Did it take him long to realise he was being used as a meal ticket?

Inertia · 17/09/2013 14:25

That was all he was contributing. He kept the rest of the money to spend on himself.

TwoStepsBeyond · 17/09/2013 14:27

It's just being realistic to equate what you lose by suddenly being part of a couple to what he contributes. Whether it is used for paying bills, mortgage, kids stuff etc is a bit irrelevant as those things all need paying from a finite amount of money.

Mentioning that he is making up the shortfall is confusing the issue. He was contributing to the house hold finances to bring them back to the same level as before he moved in. Technically he should also have been adding something on top to cover the extra cost of him living there.

DP and I have worked out that we would be no better or worse off if he moved in, as I would lose out by the same amount that he would save on his own outgoings (& give to me). However, at the moment we have the luxury of 2 separate homes, which gives us some important personal space and time on our own with our respective DCs.

Perhaps if the situation arises again you should work out exactly what the benefits/costs of living together might be (not just financially but also for you both personally). If you can't talk about these things openly you probably shouldn't be living together!

Lweji · 17/09/2013 14:29

She was the meal ticket.
She was already getting that money on benefits and lost it.

It wouldn't have been fair for him to move in, pay only say 600, and leaving her out of pocket for more than 300, if we include his expenses in food, water, electricity, gas, etc.
Thus leaving her probably with nothing, or increasing amounts of debt, while he would have almost 2000 left.

He could easily have lived by himself (and cost more than 900) and pop in a few times a week.

I prefer the suggestions of pooling all resources, sharing all expenses, then sharing what's left.

That's what true partners do. Like I did with my exH who was on incapacity benefit, and before when he earned less than me.

WhereMyMilk · 17/09/2013 14:33

Just, no-he was ONLY contributing £900-sounds a cheap deal to me for ALL living expenses & leaving him with over £1000 disposable income per month.

fluffyhat · 17/09/2013 14:57

I was a single parent with a dd and I lost my benefits/tax credits when I moved in with DH, he had no problems with supporting us as a result of that. He completely accepts that when he entered a relationship with me, it meant a commitment to my dd too, and I think any decent man will accept that. I explained that it was because the government expects couples to support each other and take no notice as to who the biological parents are. They only provide the financial support in benefits because the household income is low but obviously when the household income rises (because a man has become part of the household) then that's no longer necessary. DH is a high earner and it would have been wrong for me to get more benefits for my DC just because I had no income myself.

I think you were sensible in what you were asking, although it seems odd to me to have asked for a specific figure. We just got a joint account and had all income and outgoings from there, once we'd married and moved in we had no 'his/mine' income but it was all 'ours'.

needaholidaynow · 17/09/2013 15:00

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Dahlen · 17/09/2013 15:21

Anything for the child is up to the parents to provide between them- that's what Child Maintenance is for!

If only that were the case. 60% of single parents don't get any child maintenance, and half of those using the CSA get £5 a week or less.

The financial implications of moving in with a new partner when you have DC are not as significant as the emotional ones IMO, but they are a good barometer of how that new partner will pan out as a step parent, because that is what they become in effect when they move in, regardless of marital status. If they are unwilling to assume that role, or the parent doesn't want them to, they should not move in.

Like I said on another thread: Deciding to move in with a DP once you have children should be taken as seriously as getting married. And the DP should, IMO, accept that by moving in he is not only taking on the role of partner, but also of parent (that doesn't mean usurping the non-resident parent, but acting in addition to). If the needs of the children are put first, that's the only way to run things IMO.

That means, providing financial support and emotional support in the same was as if that child was his/her own. It doesn't necessarily mean loving that child the same as a biological child (though in most happy households, that grows with time anyway), but the behaviour shown should be as if the child matters as much as any biological child and with the same degree of commitment towards it no matter how challenging or inconvenient that may become.

While I would feel like I was asking for a lot by demanding that from a partner - because it IS a lot to ask - I wouldn't settle for any less either. The number of step-parents out there willing to assume that role, and the relationship they have with their step-children and usually life in general, shows that this isn't an unreasonable expectation and has very desirable outcomes for all involved.

EhricLovesTeamQhuay · 17/09/2013 15:44

Some odd responses on this thread. I think a lot of people aren't reading it properly. Of course you were not being unreasonable to expect him to contribute to the household. Don't let him mess with your head.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8