Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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:
ModeratelyObvious · 17/09/2013 18:48

They were together 3.5 years, not 3.5 months.

Starfighter · 17/09/2013 18:53

YANBU.
more than fair. DP moved in with me, I said "right, bills cost £xxx per month" we set up a joint account to cover said bills, when we started I put in £300 more as I earned more, he has since upped his by £200 as his wage has increased and we save what's left at end of month.

the B word is what seems to be causing some of the YABU replies.

Bogeyface · 17/09/2013 18:53

Where is their father? His contribution?

Whats that got to do with anything? The OP is asking if £900 was a fair contribution to their household expenses, which imo it is, in fact if anything it is a little on the low side. Whether or not the absent father is contributing to his children has no bearing on the OPs ex making a fair and equitable contribution to the bills and mortgage of the house he was living in.

LessMissAbs · 17/09/2013 18:55

Sounds like he has absolutely chosen not to, Saucyjack!

Bogeyface · 17/09/2013 18:56

We dont know who left who though. If the OP finished with him then this could be sour grapes.

LynetteScavo · 17/09/2013 18:56

Wow..he did not keep you, he joined your family.

YANBU. He needs to get over the fact that he contributed towards the household while he lived with you.

If he hadn't paid the £900, you may not have been able to afford to have him live with you.....you would have been out of pocket, and he would have been laughing to have so much possible income. Which would be a strange situation, really.

Bogeyface · 17/09/2013 18:57

Actually, I would love to know what he is paying in housing costs now, unless he is back with mummy and thats why he objected to paying in the first place as he thought the bill fairies paid everything.

Snog · 17/09/2013 18:58

What's done is done and frankly who cares what your ex thinks!
For any new relationship you need to be able to negotiate a financial way forward that you both find acceptable.
What other people think is not important imo.

HeySoulSister · 17/09/2013 18:58

bogeyface she is making up shortfall of benefits for 4 children from a man who isn't the father of any

Decent maintenence would mean she didn't need to....

needaholidaynow · 17/09/2013 18:59

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Dahlen · 17/09/2013 19:00

Tell that to the government, who, in their logic, have decided to start making it easier for non-resident parents to abdicate their financial responsibilities.

HeySoulSister · 17/09/2013 19:02

need extremely simple....especially as op states she needed it to support HER CHILDREN....

needaholidaynow · 17/09/2013 19:03

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Dahlen · 17/09/2013 19:04

I suppose it depends on whether you think children are best growing up as part of a family or as part of a household where mum's partner bears no responsibility towards them.

Dahlen · 17/09/2013 19:05

Yes, it is wrong. But given that the vast majority of single parents don't receive any maintenance, they either have to stay single or earn megabucks it would seem.

Bogeyface · 17/09/2013 19:10

No, the maintenance has nothin to do with it.

Simple fact is

She lost money when he moved in and could not afford for him to do that without contributing. So, either he had to pay a fair amount (which oddly enough is £1000 based on the MN standard of "pay proportionately to your salary") or not move in.

I would be very happy to pay £900 a month for all rent, bills and food! Bargain!

The issue is being confused by the way the OP worded it. Had she just said "I earn £20k, he earns £35k, our bills are £1600 a month, is £900 a fair amount for him tp contribute?" then most of the replies would be "YANBU" The second she mentioned lost TC then she was going to jumped on by the benefit bashers.

needaholidaynow · 17/09/2013 19:17

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Bogeyface · 17/09/2013 19:27

Its not about paying for the children though, its about contributing to running the household and that includes the children.

It would be the same if he had had children living there. Whatever the dynamics, he was living in a family and should contribute a fair amount to the costs of living in said family.

QuintessentialShadows · 17/09/2013 20:00

It is amazing to see so many otherwise reasonable women advocate blatant cocklodgering! Why should this man get to move in, not pay any bills, not contribute to rent, eat, shower, etc?

ILikeBirds · 17/09/2013 20:05

"Why should this man get to move in, not pay any bills, not contribute to rent, eat, shower, etc?"

Eh? The posts from the op i read suggest that he was paying £900 towards bills whilst the op was paying £700

QuintessentialShadows · 17/09/2013 20:14

So? He earns more than op. An uneven split is not unheard of.

She lost 900 on him moving in. Why should she keep paying her regular 700 in outgoings, when she had 900 less than before he moved in, while he paid nothing?

Why should a woman on a smaller salary subsidize the man?

invicta · 17/09/2013 20:15

I think it's a bit unclear what the op means. I read it originally that the £900 was compensation for loss benefits ( and nothing to do with bills). However, others have read it as the partners contribution to the household bills. If the former, then that's unreasonable. If the latter, then that's not so bad.

BruthasTortoise · 17/09/2013 20:17

It is threads like this that make me realise why so many step families fail. I'm a stepmother and the notion that I wouldn't contribute financially to my stepchildren is laughable. That is not a family, that's a family with a lodger who costs them a fortune.

ALittleStranger · 17/09/2013 20:18

The thing is you only got as much as that because you had four children. If your family was smaller he'd have had to "replace" less. This isn't about him paying his keep - which is totally reasonable - but replacing what the state gave you. And for that you're being hugely unreasonable, why should he have coughed up extra because you had four kids with someone else?

ILikeBirds · 17/09/2013 20:25

"Why should she keep paying her regular 700 in outgoings, when she had 900 less than before he moved in, while he paid nothing? "

I'm a bit confused, he was paying £900, not nothing :-S

The way I read it is that the partner wasn't suggesting that he paid nothing, but rather that £900 was more than a 50% contribution to household costs.