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

Original poster

to refuse dps plans to move us all, even though it's close by and cheaper?

20 replies

Sampanther · 20/04/2014 11:08

Dp currently works away mostly. The house we live in is rented in my name only as my dd and I lived here alone before I met dp 5 yrs ago. We have since had a child together and have another on the way in October. Dp has been offered a similar job closer to home, which is great. Our current house is only 5 mins away. However, linked to the job theres an offer of a house to rent at a reduced rate - it's about £200 less than the current house. The house is a bit smaller but with a bigger garden, and also 5 mins from work.

The issue I have with moving is that firstly, we cannot move in until September which I think is a lot to take on when baby is almost due and unsettling for dd2 to move, have a new sibling and hopefully change her bf-ing and sleep pattern all within weeks. Secondly, his company have considered selling the houses several times in the past 5 yrs. If they decided to do so it'd be last in, first out. Dp has a poor credit history and wouldn't be able to get a tenancy in his name. I won't be working after dc3 so wouldn't be able to get one in my name either. Therefore, if they sold the houses the children and I would be homeless but dp would be able to live in communal work accommodation.

Dp thinks the extra money per month on rent is wasted and we should move. I think it's a massive hassle for everyone and more secure to stay put. That way I could work on helping dd2 to sleep alone etc while knowing I wasn't going to uproot and disrupt everything at the last moment. I don't think I'd feel comfortable knowing his company is only obliged to give us one months notice and we would have to be out, particularly as we'd have absolutely nowhere else to go and dd1 has to be here for school.

Aibu to not want to move in these circumstances?

OP posts:

Paq · 20/04/2014 11:10

YANBU, but only because of the security. It's risky to have your housing and job tied up in one.

Goblinchild · 20/04/2014 11:13

No, I think you are being sensible, given DP's poor credit history and that you will be relying on him whilst you are on ML. Is he better with money and planning ahead now?
Roof over head and food in the kitchen are basics that you need to be able to guarantee for any child you are responsible for. How secure are you in your current tenancy?

TruJay · 20/04/2014 11:19

After the opening few lines if the post i thought i would say YABU but after finishing the whole post definitely YANBU under those circumstances. Of course a £200 saving is fab but having the thought of only one months notice to move hanging over you and your young children/new baby would not be a nice way to live.
just have a chat and tell dp what u have told us here. And congrats on pregnancy

PancakesAndMapleSyrup · 20/04/2014 11:20

I wouldnt move in the circumstances you describe either. Completly based on financial reasons. What happens if dp loses his job? A possibility in this climate, not saying that it is likley but then neither of you would have a home. Your dcs have been settled there for a number of years and a new baby is again, another upheaval for all as you take time to adjust to routine again.

Original poster

Sampanther · 20/04/2014 21:34

Dp is very unlikely to lose his job, that part doesn't concern me plus he is much better with money now. My tenancy is secure, I know the landlord personally and he's more than happy for us to stay as long as possible - the contract says 3 months notice as a minimum. Also if we stayed put dp could start the new job now instead of in september which I think would be better so the older kids could get used to having him around more, and vice versa.

OP posts:

PancakesAndMapleSyrup · 22/04/2014 10:26

Why not get dp to start now, instead of sept, living where you are and then in a year or so move after you have settled a bit. that said you may even find that all is ok at the house you are in now so no move will be needed!

Original poster

Sampanther · 22/04/2014 21:54

I'd prefer that, pancakes. I figure moving once baby is 6-12 months is much easier/more practical than when they are imminently due. Can't thunk of anything worse than sitting in a house of boxes but stranded and unable to unpack. Dp says waiting here for a year is almost £2500 wasted though, and doesn't want to.

OP posts:

maddening · 22/04/2014 22:03

I would move and put the £200 per month in to savings and work on the credit rating. If you managed that for 5 years before they kicked you out you'd have over £10k!

Original poster

Sampanther · 22/04/2014 22:32

But living with the potential one months notice aspect isn't very appealing maddening I don't want the dc and I to be one month away from homelessness at any given time

OP posts:

HappyMummyOfOne · 22/04/2014 22:34

If he is going to be the only earner and therefore paying the rent he should get the majority say in where you live. The existing tennancy could be ended by the LL as none are guaranteed for life and their circumstances could change in an instant meaning they have to sell etc.

Original poster

Sampanther · 22/04/2014 22:42

Sorry but I disagree with that Happymum He can only fulfill his career because I'm on hand to deal with everything childcare related. I think the children would be significantly happier if we stayed put.

OP posts:

sunbathe · 22/04/2014 22:43

I'd stay where you are. Three months' notice gives you the necessary time to find somewhere else.

Janethegirl · 22/04/2014 22:46

Sampanther, I'd stay as you are until you are happy to move, as you'd have the aggro in moving and it's not necessarily as safe bet! One months notice isn't good.

FamiliesShareGerms · 22/04/2014 22:46

I disagree with HappyMummy too - it's a partnership where you each bring something (money, childcare) and make decisions jointly.

If you can afford not to move I'd be staying too - not putting all your eggs in one basket and all.

Original poster

Sampanther · 22/04/2014 22:49

We only just realised we qualify for tax credits which would almost cover the difference in rent so we wouldn't be any worse off, as such.

OP posts:

Nestabee · 22/04/2014 23:11

£200 is a lot of money, especially since you will have a new baby.

Not the best time to move I agree, but can you move after baby has arrived?

MelonadeAgain · 22/04/2014 23:20

£200 a month cheaper isn't worth the risk, as you might end up having to find another house to rent at short notice which might work out substantially more expensive.

Tied houses in general are a poor idea, more so when they aren't free or heavily subsidised. If its "only" £200 cheaper than your current rent, that's not actually that good a deal.

expatinscotland · 22/04/2014 23:27

YANBU.

qwertybirdie · 23/04/2014 00:06

Your current landlord could sell up, so no extra security really. Also, you need to check the legal standing as a landlord normally has to give 2 months notice, unless it is the contracted end of the tenancy period. You could save a lot of money. You would be £400 per month better off if you pay less rent plus the tax credits you now qualify for. That's some saving scheme.

Fathertedfan · 23/04/2014 07:39

Whilst you may be saving £200 per month you would also need to factor in moving costs, new curtains and carpets possibly? There are a lot of hidden costs in moving so it may well be not as big a saving as your partner imagines.

Flip