Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Partner seems to think he's my landlord AIBU?

681 replies

user1476961324 · 20/10/2016 12:15

TLDR: My boyfriend wants me to move into his house, and is asking for me to contribute what he would consider ‘market rent’ if he rented the room out.

He owns the house outright, and the associated costs (bills etc) are paid by a family trust. I.e. he has no living costs to be there. He’s an adult, FYI, we are in our thirties.

He has recently asked me various questions about how much people rent rooms for, what bills cost etc. I thought he was just interested, as he has never had to pay these costs.

He told me today that he thinks that I should pay £850 per month to live in his flat as that would be the market rate if he let a room out.

I had volunteered to pay half of bills… but £850? It’s only a two bed flat, with no mortgage. I’ve told him where he can stick it.

Am I being unreasonable, or is he?

OP posts:
dinosaursarebisexual · 20/10/2016 14:19

I'd doubt it's him that even owns the house tbh.

Cherylene · 20/10/2016 14:19

Nice for him - a live in girlfriend and £850/month spending money Hmm

If you left after a year or two, he would still be quids in and you would be struggling, having had no extra cash to save and having to keep up with him with spending. That would be hard, and you may end up staying because of financial needs.

I would be very wary of this trust - ok; he gets a house and the bills paid, but who is controlling it? Are they using it to control him? Where would that leave you if you had children and stayed with him or separated?

Theoretician · 20/10/2016 14:20

Everyone seems to think that he would be making money from her. That's wrong. £850 is what he thinks needs to be paid for the relationship to be financially neutral. (He may be wrong about the figure, but then that's a different argument.) If she's paying less than she would pay to move into a house-share elsewhere, she's being subsidised. (Which may be fine, but the people calling him selfish and grabby need to be clear that this is because they regard it as a poorer partner's right to subsidised, not falsely claim that an absence of subsidy is a profit for him.)

timelytess · 20/10/2016 14:23

Oh, I see. You get to pay £850.00 to doss in his flat?

Make sure you charge at least him £200 a time for sex (standard vaginal entry), £100 for oral and so on - and make him pay in advance.

Original poster
user1476961324 · 20/10/2016 14:24

I don’t think there is a measure of financial illiteracy, it’s just not a black and white situation – because we are combining emotional (we’re in a relationship) and financial (I’m paying him money) factors.

I wouldn’t mind paying all of the bills on account of no rent to pay – this still would be less than half of the £850 though!

If he had a mortgage, then I would expect to pay towards it – if it was £1000/m, I would pay half. That’s fine – the problem here is that it is pure profiteering! He is making money from me - everything is basically sunk costs.

I don’t think I should be subsidised – but equally, I don’t think I should be subsidising him because of ‘market rates’ (which are already grossly inflated!).

OP posts:
Cherylene · 20/10/2016 14:24

Everyone seems to think that he would be making money from her.

Of course he is making money from her. He has no costs. He is being subsidised by the trust. To be financially neutral, they would have to move elsewhere and share the costs.

jewellerymum1 · 20/10/2016 14:25

Short of dumping him. Tell him you'll pay £850 into a savings account for when you buy your first house together. A much more practical use of the money than giving it to him. Do NOT give him access to the account.

SittingAround1 · 20/10/2016 14:25

Theoretician - I'd argue that he wouldn't be subsidising her in this case as he currently doesn't have to pay anything for the flat. This wouldn't change if she moves in (esp. as I do believe she should pay half the bills). If he was say paying say £1000 for the rent/mortgage and she was living there for free then yes he'd be subsidising her. Instead he's going to be profiting from her. He didn't set out to look for a tenant but wants a live in girlfriend.

Scribblegirl · 20/10/2016 14:26

theoretrician well in that case, how about she puts £850 a month into a savings account for the both of them, and if they split up she keeps the lot, as he will keep his house?

That way she's still 'sacrificing' but if they don't get married then he hasn't profited.

Still think it's a load of shit, mind.

BeMorePanda · 20/10/2016 14:28

so he wants to make an income, off you his partner? Fuck that.
I'm all for people paying their way when they can, but no he should not be charging you rent. You should be sharing 50% of the costs of the flat.

If you do sort this out and manage to move in on reasonable terms, do seriously consider saving what you would have put towards rent until you can buy yourself a flat - if not to live in when you split from him, at least to get a foothold on the property ladder for some point in the future.

thatwouldbeanecumenicalmatter · 20/10/2016 14:28

If she's paying less than she would pay to move into a house-share elsewhere, she's being subsidised.

No she's not. She'd get her own room and rights as a tenant. As well as only having to look out for/after herself (I'm assuming they share chores). Other than food/utilities she'd not be costing him anything - I'd like to see how much he'd be able to charge a lodger who had to share his bed with him!

PersianCatLady · 20/10/2016 14:29

Living with your partner for two years gives you zero rights of inheritance, unless you're actually named in the will...
The law changed so that if there is no will you can make a claim against your partner's estate through the court.

But you are only able to do this if you have been living together for two years or more, or you were being supported financially by your partner.

If for example the OP was to move in and pay less than market rent, it may be considered that her DP was financially supporting her and therefore in the event of his death this could be an issue.

However the way I understand it an easier way to get around all of this is for the DP to make sure that they leave a will, so there is no doubt and then none of this comes into play.

MustBeDueSomeBetterFeet · 20/10/2016 14:29

I've never heard of anything like it!

My now husband owned his flat outright, no mortgage, but of course usual bills to pay, in Zone 1.

When it came to my moving in, rather than my paying him any rent we agreed that we would share bills, but that would both be saving as much of our (professional) salaries as possible as ultimately we knew we wanted to marry, buy a house out of London, have a family and these things all cost!

So it made sense for us to both contribute to the financial stability of the partnership by making good investment decisions whilst we weren't 'burdened' to hopefully ensure a decent start to our committed relationship.

This is such a horrible red flag about this man's attitude towards money and, therefore, you.

Comiconce · 20/10/2016 14:30

Financially neutral Hmm What a load of bollocks. (And what scribblegirl has said)

Arfarfanarf · 20/10/2016 14:32

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Arborea · 20/10/2016 14:32

OP, are you sure he intends to pocket your rent payments? It might be that the trustees who own the house are asking for you to contribute, and not your partner.

Worth double checking, because it could easily change the complexion of the situation (unless it's a bare trust for your partner the trustees need to consider the interests of all the trust beneficiaries, and it could be that they're insisting that you pay full market rent, not him).

shovetheholly · 20/10/2016 14:33

You will get a dozen different answers on Mumsnet about this, because people have very different ideas of what constitutes 'reasonable' when it comes to housing costs.

At the end of the day, all of those definitions come down to values.

The fact that he can even consider this suggests he regards his income above his care for you. It also suggests that he very much doesn't see you as a couple with pooled resources: you are someone who needs to 'break even' in their contribution. It is neither generous nor particularly loving as an attitude: it is pragmatic, self-centred and hard-nosed. Now there are lots of people who are hard-nosed businesslike individuals out there, and they have a right to their opinions and to make such agreements with others who share their values. But not everyone likes them and certainly not everyone wants to be married to them.

When I first moved in with DH, I contributed absolutely nothing to the mortgage for a number of years. I had a house elsewhere, which took a long time to sell (for various reasons, not least the fact that my exP deliberately flooded it, entailing a year of repairs). He let me live rent-free because there was no other way for us to be together and he wanted us to be together more than he wanted the money. I did pay whatever I could towards bills and food, though.

YelloDraw · 20/10/2016 14:34

how about she puts £850 a month into a savings account for the both of them, and if they split up she keeps the lot, as he will keep his house?

I like that idea

ZoeTurtle · 20/10/2016 14:35

I couldn't stay with anyone who thought this was a reasonable thing to ask.

Comiconce · 20/10/2016 14:36

Personally I'd run for the hills. And this comes from someone who moved into her dp's house as a 'lodger' and paid a small amount of rent towards his mortgage costs (and half of all bills) many moons ago. It allowed me to finish my degree despite dwindling funds and it allowed him to save up money towards the deposit for our first jointly owned house...

Theoretician · 20/10/2016 14:36

She'd get her own room and rights as a tenant

Yes her living situation with him is different than being a lodger, and him having her there is different from having a lodger, so there needs to be some adjustment for that. But all we are arguing about then is what is the correct amount, not the principal of whether to pay.

OldBootNewBoots · 20/10/2016 14:37

surely if that were the case, he'd have made it clear he was being pushed to charge a market rent by his trustees? I'd ditch him op, if i'd been with a bloke 2 years, and he offered us to move in together and for me to pay 'market rate' for a room in his house, I'd take it as a strong signal his feelings were lukewarm and move on. Surely relationships should be a bit more than fwb by 2 years? He's benefiting already from someone to share house running costs!

zznotxy · 20/10/2016 14:39

Move in, pay the £850 - then shop him to HMRC.

Aeroflotgirl · 20/10/2016 14:40

I agree with Oldboots surely if this was the case that he was being forced to ask for rent from trustees, he would have been open with op about it.

gillybeanz · 20/10/2016 14:42

YANBU he is.
The red flag for me is he's in his thirties and is asking you how much bills pay, he has a trust to live on.
He seems to have no idea he reminds me of "Arthur" the Dudley Moore character Grin
Anyway, I'd run a mile, there's a reason he's single.