Is he beng unreasonable ??

[Milly101]

My brother has 7 year old daughter his ex partner lives in one of his houses rent and council tax free brother also pays a generous amount in child support ( I think he feels guilty and this is a way of easiing conscience break up entirely his fault)
They've been split up for 5 or so years both have moved on and are fairly friendly ex has been in relationship with a lovely bloke for maybe 3 years brother and him have met get on fine no issues there.
Ex announced to my brother at drop of on Sunday night that her partner has his 2 bed flat on the rental market and when he finds suitable tenants he is going to move in with brothers ex and daughter, brother says fine no problems but they will have to pay the going rate for rent.
I can't help but feel this is fair,both my mother and his ex seem to think this is wholly unreasonable and a bit controlling.
Is he being unreasonable ?

So is that what a feminist is Balaboosta, a woman who once she's had a child with a man, feels entitled to use him as a meal ticket for the rest of her life?

What happened to the idea of taking charge of one's own life and paying one's own way?

Clearly feminism has changed since my day.

Of course your brother should be charging rent.

Exactly pigs - it's an anti feminist stance in my view.

No one is stopping her from living her own life. There is just an expectation from her and partner that someone else will fund their lifestyle.

Paying a reduced rent leaves them no worse off. In fact he is better off in the sense he is living in £850 PW accommodation that costs what he is paying now.

Her position hasn't changed.

If her new partner wants her to pay half of the new rent (ie to half his current expenditure) then that says more about him than the OP's brother and is a rather large red flag.

Hrtft but with divorce and re-marriage that's normally when the ex stops supporting the wife. So it seems completely reasonable to me.

I rather suspect that the new partner moving in (and him renting out his flat) was based on them not having to pay rent. I think she is kicking off because she knows that her cocklodger boyfriend wont want to move in if he has to pay rent.

The brother should stand his ground.

Agree bogey.

If I had agreed to a package of maintenance for my child how ever that package was made up I would not rescind on that arrangement unless my circumstances changed or if at the time of agreement it was made clear that changes in the other parents circumstances could impact on it and what changes would lower it.

I'm also a little cautious when I hear the words "he pays generous CM" as that's very subjective one persons generous is often not the same as another persons. Actual amounts are also not especially helpful in working this out a simple he pays X% of his income would be better.

If he's being reasonable or not is quite dependant on that sort of thing. I'm also wondering about your mum? Is she sensible intelligent decent, reasonable? If she disapproves why (I'm guessing she has more understanding of the actual financial position than we do and assuming she loves and cares for your brother).

Brother subsidising housing costs for child = fine and proper.

Brother completely subsiding housing costs for mother of child = generous

Brother subsiding housing costs for mother of child's new boyfriend = totally bonkers.

Your brother is being fair and reasonable :)

Needs, he pays £950 per month if that helps

Bloody hell. So with her net salary of c£1,600, £950 in maintenance and no housing costs, she has c£2,500 to play with each month. I earn more than triple what she does but my spending money after rent is waaaaay less than that. And now her new partner is bringing another £2500 at least into the household, and they're whinging about paying £585 in rent? Cheeky sponging fuckers.

I think your brother has been incredibly generous and it's now time to stop. I assume from the maintenance he's paying that he's pretty well off and I wonder whether there's an element of 'well he can afford it, why shouldn't we get it for free'.

Under the rules of many pension schemes a widow's pension stops on remarriage or cohabitation. This is the same IMO - your brother has been very kind to her and done the right thing for a long time while she was single, but if her new OH wants to move in he has to take some responsibility for providing as part of that household.

I also think bogey is right....

I agree with charging the guy rent. He's not charging his ex anything, so he's not changing her circumstances. If they don't want him as a landlord, they can move out.

Ex's new boyfriend will be getting £585 per month rent rent on his own place. He will not only be living rent and council tax free in a new property (and I am presuming paying less in bills as only half) he will be making a profit on this. If the rent for his flat is to pay his mortgage then in effect OP's brother will be paying his motgage for him.

Ex will have a household income of £70, 000 + £11, 400 maintenance + £7, 000 rent for boyfriends flat = £88, 500.
Surely enough to afford a discounted £585 rent. Or perhaps buy there own place together. Or even sell boyfriends flat and buy their own house.
I suspect that boyfriend will not find these options so attractive.

How they are being controlled, I have no idea.

Don't forget that brother could make £10,000 a year by renting his house out so is really paying £21, 000 per year to ex. Takijg household income to equivalent of nearly £100, 000.
No wonder ex wants this arrangement.
If it is ok for new boyfriend to rent his property it should be ok for brother.

Half rent. No way should your brother support the new partner. He still has child living there though. Dont understand why people think its controlling.

Ex's financial circumstances will not change at all. Brother is offering to charge £585 per month rent. The same amount that new boyfriend will be receiving in rent for his flat. In fact ex will be better off by halving bills, food cost etc.
Ex does not only want her finances to stay the same but expects her ex to subsidise new boyfriend so they can keep all his rental income too.

Entitled? Much?

Ex is BVU.

Really, ex should be grateful for having had such cushy circumstances for so long. She and her new man could just move into his house, but clearly decided that they could both benefit more from getting rent free housing as well as a rental income. Having their cake and your bro footing the bill.

Bro should charge the going rate and if they cavill at that they won't be homeless. Brother can just pay a bit more for his dd and stop all the rental nonsense.

Needs, he pays £950 per month if that helps

Not really. That could be 1% of his salary or it could be 100% it makes a massive difference

Most divorce settlements state that any money paid on top of child maintenance will cease once the payee remarries or cohabits. Why should the ex (DBro) subsidise living expenses of his DCs' mum's new BF. Completely reasonable in my view to charge him rent and tbh, after 5 years I'd be expecting her to be finding her feet and paying her own way too.

I've been separated nearly 3 years and during that time have retrained and found new ways to earn a living so that my ex can stop paying me the extra (spousal) maintenance next year and just pay the CM. If my DP moved in with us he would contribute towards my living costs, especially if he was getting a rental income from his place. If he wanted to move in and live rent free I'd think he was a cocklodger.

I could send one of my children to live with their other parent pay him say £1500 a month and you would all say "oh how generous what a lucky man he is" but if he took me to court a judge would be most unimpressed and would be very likely likely to order me to pay considerably more.

Its very dependant on his income, hers is not very relevant.

Unless of course when he made the arrangement he was very clear that cohabitation would change it because its rather more than one could expect.

You don't appear to know his income (but you know hers) I know if I made an arrangement that was part paid in cash and part in goods or services I would have a very good idea as to what % of my income the total arrangement cost me and that would be a consideration in future renegotiations.

Lots of RP will make agreements to pay X in cash and Provide X as CM or just provide X its not an unusual thing.

Nobody knows not even the op if the package he has been providing is CM in total.

If the cash alone is say 1-10% of his salary and the waived rental is the remaining 5% then he is only providing the minimum he legally should be if the total is less than 15% (or what ever figure the new service uses) then he's under paying.

Its of course also possible that he has agreed to over pay.

Nobody knows.

You are just hearing a large sum and reacting to that.

Her AIBU could just as easily say my ex pays me 15% of his income for CM in a mix of cash and services because I was happy to accept this all of a sudden he's now decided to remove the services aspect of it reducing the CM by x all because my BF is moving in. The responses to that would be very very different

Ex's boyfriend sounds like a total cocklodger.

This is crazy. You are all going mad with doing these sums and seeing pound signs before your eyes. The brothers obligation is to put a roof over his child's head and, yes, to support the mother as primary carer of his child. Go back principles. What difference does it make who she asks to live with her? He still needs to provide for his child. I assume that this situation has arisen because the couple were not married and so there is no divorce settlement. If there was, you would have the very different situation where she would own half the marital home. She could then continue to live there or buy the husband out and move on. Whatever she chose to do would be on her terms. This is why I say it's a feminist issue and one of female control. Because the brother is trying to impose terms on her living situation. If I was her I would be getting the hell out if there. The brother is being greedy. Remember he still owns the equity of the house and when the child is no longer a dependent - what then for the mother? She will be cast out of the house. Sorry but I still think that this is a totally unresolved situation with legal implications and all this "cocklodger" stuff is neither here or there. This is about the child FFS. If the father has stuffed u the relationship he has to continue to support the child. What happens if them mother moves out to live with this new man and then they split up? The brother is forcing her into dependency on him. Forget the sums of money and think if it in principles and also the interests of the child.

Her AIBU could just as easily say my ex pays me 15% of his income for CM in a mix of cash and services because I was happy to accept this all of a sudden he's now decided to remove the services aspect of it reducing the CM by x all because my BF is moving in. The responses to that would be very very different

Exactly.