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 ?

Milly just to clear this up for Needs does your brother's CM payment meet the monthly requirement or does he 'top up' CM payments by letting them live rent-free in order to bring that amount up to his legal requirement?

The brother is forcing her into dependency on him.

If only there were some way for her to break free. But sadly she's trapped. Perhaps she should leave in the middle of the night and go into a refuge.

I think she should gave to pay regardless nobody gets to live in a house rent free surely? If brother chooses to do it as a reduced rate than that's up to him but don't think it's particularly healthy to live in exs house rent free.

If they don't want to pay rent to her Ex then the easy solution is to find somewhere else to live. The op brother should not be forced to pay all the housing cost and council tax forever for his Ex just because he made mistakes and their relationship finished. He is only responsible for looking after his daughter and £950 per month is more then enough to cover half of any costs.

It sounds like Ex and her new partner have decided that they will live both rent and council tax free while bringing a large wage into the home.

The poor new man fancy having to contribute to housing costs. What an outrage.

Perhaps they could move and find a better deal elsewhere?

Your brother was foolish not to get some financial clarity over the situation earlier.

It's curious that people think the father should support the randomfella/ step-father financially.

The randomfella/ step-father will need to take great care. One false step and he too could be forced into dependency on the OP's brother.

nauticant . yes, whatever can she do? Poor poor woman...

Balaboosta "when the child is no longer a dependent - what then for the mother? She will be cast out of the house." Exactly, as it should be. She is a perfectly able woman, therefore perfectly able to support herself. Her child is their child, not her pretext to sponging off a man. And she can also perfectly pay for half the roof over her daughter's head, no?

Balaboosta I'm failing to see here how this impacts the ex one iota? She will still be living rent free and it won't impact her child. The new partner shouldn't be the one subsidised, he shouldn't be making a profit at the brother's expense.

I agree, half rent is the fairest way.

I'm beginning to wonder if Balaboosta is OP's brother's ex or OP's mother.

How anyone can think it reasonable to expect to be kept in this way is beyond me.

Nobody pays my mortgage for me and I had 3 children with my exh.

Maybe I should expect him to pay my mortgage 3 times over. Oh and my council tax and my gas and electricity and any other random bills I care to throw his way, even though my children are all adults. After all we were married for 22 years and why can't I be kept for the rest of my life.

Bloody ridiculous. It's time she grew up and paid her own way.

And as far as anyone forcing dependency on anyone, it sounds to me like she's the one who is more than happy to be dependent on her ex because hell, you save an awful lot of money that way.

Your brother is being reasonable.
After 3 years together, the new partner presumably wants to form a household with your exSIL, and with that comes responsibilities, including financial ones.
If he was only moving in because it was free, then your brother has done her a favour exposing that

How anyone can think it reasonable to expect to be kept in this way is beyond me

It would be perfectly reasonable if the amount that was received was the equivalent of what he would be expected to pay in CM.

There are quite a few circumstances I can think of that would make the arrangement perfectly reasonable.

It would also be perfectly reasonable if both parties agreed to a differing sum than those that would be ordered by the CMS or court (if high earner).

Lots of parents may also be perfectly happy to pay more than the legally required amount to support their children that would also be reasonable.

Sorry, Balaboosta, but outrageous statements like that give real feminists a bad name. Feminism does not and should not mean an unlimited sense of entitlement just by virtue of having a vagina. Unbelievable!

Your brother is not being unreasonable at all. Why should the boyfriend profit from free housing.

Unless I missed the memo that stated feminism means having an unlimited entitlement to financial support purely by virtue of possessing a vagina, the OP's brother is being entirely reasonable.

If your brother was paying spousal support to an ex wife, generally that maintenance stops if that partner enters into a new relationship and then forms a household with someone else. I don't know how much your brother earns but I can't see stopping spousal support under these circumstances as unreasonable.

It would be in everyone's best interests to calculate a fair amount of child maintenance, proportional to his income (which must be fairly large as you say 'one of his houses' in your OP) and for the ex partner and boyfriend (both of whom must have no pride by the way) to pay market rate for rent.

Your brother is being totally reasonable. Why should this man make a profit out of his generosity? That said half rent or a reduced rent might be fair too.

In no way does this seem controlling
to me.

All the situations you quote are reasonable Needs.

What isn't reasonable, however, is for the exw/gf to expect to move her new bf into her exp's house and expect her exp to subsidise him by allowing him to live there rent free.

As pps have said, after a divorce, when a woman remarries spousal support stops.

Why should OP's brother not only continue paying spousal support once the new bf moves into the house but start supporting the new bf in the form of rent free accommodation.

I'm a bit confused (and I have rtft). When brother and ex were together where did they live? Did she work and so pay money into the household? When they separated what happened to this property? If she did then could it be considered that ex has some 'ownership' of the property?
Apologies if I've missed this up thread.

The legal cm payment for brother is £1000 per month the house is above and beyond that

He needs to get legal advice I think. Worth getting terms formalised. Is she likely to go to CSA?

The legal cm payment for brother is £1000 per month the house is above and beyond that

Assuming that is based on his entire income inc relevant income from rentals then based on that additional information it would not be unreasonable for him to renegotiate the arrangement if he no longer feels able to commit to it. But part of that negotiation should be to increase the cash he pays her. It would be fair to alter it to the required minimum but not to go under that.

Of course he should have made it clear to her originally that he would be basing his financial support on her relationship status. Who knows,perhaps he did.

Yes but would a solicitor say that, even if house is in brother's name, ex has some claim on it as she contributed to the household for some time? The same way if brother has a business and wife may count as having a share?

Bur he is paying £950 child maintenance, then the rent of £585 and council tax of probably another £100 per month and then whatever he spends directly on his daughter when she is with him.

As I asked earlier how much more does OP brother need to give to his EX.

A solicitor is not really required for 2 grown amicable adults to attempt to reach a mutually agreeable arrangement.

I'm sure if the op wanted legal advice she would have posted in legal I've just given my opinion on what would i think would be reasonable.

Legal stuff would depend if court orders were involved if they were married is it the former matrimonial home that sort of thing. It could also be adventitious as its possible the sums involved are outside the amounts that the CSA/CMS deal with. (I haven't looked recently at the amounts but they only asses liability based on a certain amount of income anything above that would be dealt with by a court if not in agreement, I normally remember the amounts but I'm unwell at the moment and my brain isn't working)
I'm not even sure I'm explaining it correctly but in theory if someone took the queen to the CMS she would end up being assessed as needing to pay peanuts in comparison to income so in that circumstance legal advice would be useful for both of them because that would obviously end up in court.