Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

I've moved in with my partner and he won't put me on his tenancy agreement.

215 replies

Bosschopsbitch · 01/03/2017 12:41

We would have over in together eventually but circumstances kind of pushed it to happen now. And because of that there have been things that we hadnt really ironed out. I'm on universal credit (aforementioned circumstances) and he works full time but in order for me to still claim and get CTC for my son it's had to be changed to a joint claim (I dont understand tbh) but the advisor said if I wanted to claim the housing element thend I would have to be added to the tenancy. With a resolute 'no she isn't going on the tenancy' that was the end of that. He won't disuss it. He won't reconsider. Absolutely steadfast and will not budge. AIBU to be pissed off/angry/shocked/uoset/all of the above?

OP posts:
JonesyAndTheSalad · 01/03/2017 14:36

Exit yes but if she were a bloke, it's unlikely (though not impossible) that she'd be a single parent. She has a child. She is thinking of the future.

TheOnlyLivingBoyinNewCork · 01/03/2017 14:37

Don't be obtuse Jones. You could go stay at your mates house when you needed a place in a hurry, but you wouldn't argue its your home in the same sense that it is hers, would you?

Want2bSupermum · 01/03/2017 14:39

The fact that he isn't adding the OP to the tenancy means this isn't her home. I would be off to the CAB to see what I could do to get myself HB and move out. I agree with all of what polly said too. I don't think you are setting a good example for your DC by not working and moving in with a boyfriend.

I know not all areas have huge waiting lists for HA housing. In the NW there is ample provision in most parts. You need your own place for you and your son.

ExitStage · 01/03/2017 14:39

Jonesy, she might be thinking of the future. But the child is hers not his. Why the hell should he make his future less secure just because she has a kid that's not his.

Remember, she wasn't so keen on living with him whilst she thought she had a roof over her head.

happy2bhomely · 01/03/2017 14:40

I live in a council house.

When I got my first tenancy I was single. DP then moved in. He did not go on the tenancy because the council said no. I did lose benefits because it was obviously expected that a partner working full time would pay the bills.

We then married. He is still not on the tenancy but does now have a right to succession if I die. I also do not have the power to remove him from our home. He has as much right to live here as I do, despite not being on the tenancy, because we are married.

In the event we divorce, a court would decide who got to live here. It would likely be me as I am the main carer to our children.

All rent payments are my responsiblity and only I have the power to end the tenancy.

PollyPerky · 01/03/2017 14:42

It's no good trading semantics Jonesy. People aren't automatically co-habitees just because they live with someone. I could go and live with a mate but I'd not call it 'my home'. I'd be a guest.

OP sort out your life, your work and a home for your child. Live with someone if it's right. He doesn't sound right because he won't discuss it with you.

Bluntness100 · 01/03/2017 14:46

Don't be obtuse Jones. You could go stay at your mates house when you needed a place in a hurry, but you wouldn't argue its your home in the same sense that it is hers, would you?

peggyundercrackers · 01/03/2017 14:48

he is doing the right thing, he is protecting himself which is what any normal person would do in this scenario. your rights don't trump his because you have a child.

NameChange30 · 01/03/2017 14:52

noodoodle
"All I was getting at was that pp were saying she could kick him out, or he could kick her out if not on tenancy, and neither is true."

If it's a joint tenancy, neither can kick the other out. (In the event of a split and disagreement about who stays, it would have to be settled legally.)

If the tenancy remains in his name only, he can kick her out. Without her name on the tenancy agreement she is legally an "excluded occupier". Not a position I'd put myself in with a dependent child.

mum11970 · 01/03/2017 14:53

I don't think he's wrong in protecting himself. If he puts her on the tenancy and they then split up, she gets his property and he's left high and dry with very little or no help, as lone men are not a housing priority.

JonesyAndTheSalad · 01/03/2017 14:57

Boy you're the one being obtuse. Staying at a mate's is NOT the same as moving in with a man you're having a romantic/sexual relationship with.

Bluntness100 · 01/03/2017 14:58

Emma, in this scenario he would go, not her, as she has a child. As such, he is putting himself at her mercy if he puts her on the agreement and if she decides to end it she will have secure housing and he will be out on his ear.

Considering she only moved in because she had to, and not because of love and desire to live together, his actions seem reasonable. Couple this with the fact he is now financially supporting her as well, he seems to be doing the decent thing. Her refusal to pay her share of the rent if she starts working as she is not on the tenancy is highly unreasonable and totally taking the piss.

She should move out.

PollyPerky · 01/03/2017 15:01

I feel sorry for the child who is caught up in the chaos. They don't have any say but are being dragged willy nilly around the country because somehow their mum has got herself into a situation.

Don't know the back story to the move but it's certainly not ideal. The child needs a stable home with one parent in work, to be a good role model, and anything else comes after that.

NameChange30 · 01/03/2017 15:04

"She should move out."

That's exactly what I said in the first line of my first post!

Don't think she should have moved in with him in the first place - not without discussing the tenancy issue.

I wouldn't move in somewhere without having my name on the tenancy or deeds (or having home rights via marriage), not if I had a dependent child.

I'm not commenting on whether the OP's partner is in the wrong - I can see why he wants to protect himself but he is also showing that he's not committed to the relationship, not on this issue anyway. If I was the OP I'd take that on board and leave.

ExitStage · 01/03/2017 15:09

Emma

Can you not see that the OP wasnt committed to the relationship until she was up shit creak without a paddle?

PollyPerky · 01/03/2017 15:09

I think Emma knows that Exit have you read the wrong posts?

AcrossthePond55 · 01/03/2017 15:10

Bottom line is, it's his house. If you aren't happy with his decision, then you need to move out.

It would be a cold day in hell before I'd add a new partner (new as in just moved in together) to any house I had sole legal right to. Living together is vastly different to spending time together. And if you've 'moved areas' that indicates to me that your time together has probably been limited to weekends and the occasional week together, and possibly without your child (your 'off' weekends as it were). DH and I had a long distance relationship when we first met. When I moved to be closer to him I rented my own apartment and he kept his. Yes, we loved each other and were 99% sure we would marry, but we both were realistic and knew that we needed to spend much more time together in 'every day' circumstances.

I know any number of relationships that have broken down once the couple co-habited.

ExitStage · 01/03/2017 15:12

Polly, Emma says that the boyfriend is showing that he's not committed to the relationship. Hence my comment.

NameChange30 · 01/03/2017 15:18

Well, it depends what you mean by "committed". Not wanting to uproot your child for a man could be seen as a lack of commitment but I think putting your child first is pretty bloody reasonable tbh. I understand from the OP that she moved in with him because a) he has been pestering her to do so for a long time and b) she felt she had no choice. I've already made it clear in my posts that I think it was a shame the OP made that decision. She is realising rather late that she and her child are quite vulnerable as they're at the mercy of him and the relationship.

Whathaveilost · 01/03/2017 15:19

To be honest I wouldn't put you on the tennancy agreement either.
I would want to be living with someone a veey long while before i made such a commitment and know that we were compatible on a 24/7 basis.

If you dont like it get you and your son somewhere you can call your own home.

TheOnlyLivingBoyinNewCork · 01/03/2017 15:21

Boy you're the one being obtuse. Staying at a mate's is NOT the same as moving in with a man you're having a romantic/sexual relationship with

And moving in because you had no choice is not the same as moving in because you both agreed to live together. I don't believe you don't understand the difference, you just think she should get what she wants because she has a kid.

NameChange30 · 01/03/2017 15:25

I wonder how he got the HA tenancy in the first place... as PPs have pointed out, a single man without children wouldn't usually be eligible. Did he inherit the tenancy, I wonder?

JonesyAndTheSalad · 01/03/2017 15:27

Boy no I don't but he's not exactly telling her she CAN'T move in is he? He must want her there! He can't have his cake can he?

He wants his partner to live with him. She has a child to consider too.

Bluntness100 · 01/03/2017 15:27

Emma, she said she moved in because she was practically homeless, that was the situation that pushed it.

NameChange30 · 01/03/2017 15:28

Yes i can read thanks Hmm