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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

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:

Tobuyornot99 · 02/03/2017 10:24

No its not Roomster, it's the entire point of the thread. It's because she's on benefits that she needs to go on the tenancy to get HB!

Roomster101 · 02/03/2017 10:31

Its not really, because if she wasn't on benefits she wouldn't be insisting she needs to get on the tenancy to get housing benefit. Plus she'd probably be paying rent, which would give her more claim to it.

The issue has come up because she is on benefits but the fact she is on benefits is irrelevant to the question of whether her partner is unreasonable to not want to put her on the tenancy.

TheOnlyLivingBoyinNewCork · 02/03/2017 10:33

It isn't though. It's all part of the same issue.

Tobuyornot99 · 02/03/2017 10:44

The issue should have come up before she moved in, not after. She really isn't in a strong negotiating position now.

Roomster101 · 02/03/2017 10:45

Only to people who want to berate those who are on benefits.....

TheOnlyLivingBoyinNewCork · 02/03/2017 10:47

Not in the slightest. You can't turn any mention of benefits into benefit bashing, no matter how hard you try.

Tobuyornot99 · 02/03/2017 10:49

So the OP has moved her child into a non secure housing situation, isn't able to claim HB for her share of the rent and is being afforded the opportunity to live rent free, and her DP isn't happy to risk his child's home for this woman who, by her own account, wasn't wild on living with him in the first place. But we should all be rate him? Roomster your argument has no logic.

Roomster101 · 02/03/2017 10:54

Not in the slightest. You can't turn any mention of benefits into benefit bashing, no matter how hard you try.

I think that some people can and do (see above)

Roomster101 · 02/03/2017 10:57

But we should all be rate him? Roomster your argument has no logic.

Considering that I (and nearly every other poster) think the DP is not unreasonable and I certainly haven't said that we should "all be rate him" (whatever that means) I think that you are the one with an illogical argument.

NameChange30 · 02/03/2017 10:59

be rate = berate

Tobuyornot99 · 02/03/2017 11:04

Roomster be rate was an autocorrect error from berate. I can totally understand how you couldn't work it out though, it was truly a puzzler!

SanityAssassin · 02/03/2017 11:06

Wow you are desperate to get your hands on his house aren't you.

When my then DP moved in with me after 2 years I never added him to my mortgage - and when I moved in to his new house 8 years later he didn't add me to his either. We were both financially independent though which you don't sound and with a child that's not his too I am not surprised - he seems financially savvy

Always protect your assets - which is all your DP is doing.

PollyPerky · 02/03/2017 11:19

Fully aware that benefits are for those in need. But without knowing all the facts it appears the OP may have deliberately put herself in a position where she needs to claim benefits and move in with her partner. The sensible thing to do is to find work first, then somewhere to live, then decide about the relationship. I'd go as far as saying that many benefits are wasted on people who manage their lives badly through poor planning, rather than being victims of circumstances outside their control.

NameChange30 · 02/03/2017 11:22

"But without knowing all the facts"

People always fucking do this. They don't know all the facts so they assume the fucking worst. They assume the OP is at fault.

Ask the fucking question before making your nasty assumptions and having a go at someone.

Your post smacks of victim blaming to me, you clearly know nothing about why and how people end up in difficult positions and have to claim benefits.

Try volunteering for Citizens Advice or a food bank for 5 fucking minutes and you might discover a bit of compassion.

NameChange30 · 02/03/2017 11:24

"many benefits are wasted on people who manage their lives badly through poor planning"

This was the comment that made my blood boil btw, what a load of snobbish superior ignorant bollocks.

And if people make poor decisions because they lack the education, skills or resilience, does that mean we shouldn't support them to get back on their feet and make better decisions?!

FFS

NameChange30 · 02/03/2017 11:26

Clearly you've read one too many copies of the Daily fucking Fail.

WatchingFromTheWings · 02/03/2017 11:27

Having been in HA/Social Housing myself for a few years (not anymore) I know they strongly advise against adding new partners to tenancy when they move in. When my DP moved in with me I asked about adding him as he would then be paying the full rent (I was on full HB until then) they said it's best not to. If things went tits up he could have handed in the notice to leave without me knowing and myself and the kids would be homeless (or back in emergency housing where we started).

SanityAssassin · 02/03/2017 11:35

"But without knowing all the facts"

Do YOU?

NameChange30 · 02/03/2017 11:42

No I don't know all the facts. Which is why I'm not making assumptions and having a go at the OP.

PollyPerky · 02/03/2017 13:49

Maybe stop patronising AnotherEmma.
I'm allowed to have an opinion that's based on experiences rather than the Daily Fail.

And before you start accusing me again, how do you know I don't work for the CAB or food banks or indeed do all kinds of voluntary work?

Bit ironic that you accuse people of making assumptions when you do exactly the same. Just think before you post.

NameChange30 · 02/03/2017 14:31

"And before you start accusing me again, how do you know I don't work for the CAB or food banks or indeed do all kinds of voluntary work?"

Because I refuse to believe you'd spout that crap if you did.

Go on then, do you work or volunteer for charity? What's this experience you have that entitles you to say shit like that?

PollyPerky · 02/03/2017 15:30

You're a darling aren't you?

You go first. Obviously you spend all your days working with people on benefits or applying for them.

Just because someone says something with which you disagree you become foul mouthed and angry.

Tough. This AIBU and everyone's entitled to an opinion.

user1486187964 · 02/03/2017 15:36

Many people on here are arguing the fact that by not adding the OP to the tenancy contract it shows he's not fully invested in the relationship and doesn't see it lasting long term otherwise he would have no problem adding her to it. However by that logic surely the same can be said for the OP?

If she was fully invested in the relationship then she would have no need to go on the tenancy agreement as surely that's only what someone would need to do if they didn't see the relationship lasting so therefore it shows her lack of trust in it..

However, any logical person should be able to understand that you can be committed in a relationship but also want to protect yourself in the event of a break up as even the most loving of relationships can fail for many reasons. The OP is not wrong for wanting to protect herself by being on the tenancy as this gives her more protection in the event of the relationship ending. However, neither is her partner wrong for wanting to protect himself by not letting her be on the tenancy as this risks his protection in the event of a failed relationship between the two.

The only choices that both then have are limited. Either one or the other give up their security by adding or not adding the OP to the tenancy or the OP moves into her own house. With the OP's partner not wanting to give up his security, which logically is the best choice for him, then the OP now gets to choose which of the two choices left is best for her. A separate house with her named on the tenancy or stay living with her partner with her name not on the tenancy. Whatever choice she makes is her choice alone and one that she should take responsibility for if either option doesn't end up going her way.

I will say though that it's funny how some people can twist things to make something fit their narrative without realising that they are being a hypocrite for condemning one person for doing exactly what they are advocating another to do.

ApplePaltrow21 · 02/03/2017 15:45

PollyPerky

You're doing the lord's work on this thread. It's really really hard to maintain the position that the bf is evil/a cocklodger with all this information but AnotherEmma will fight the good fight for non working lazy poorly organized hypocritical benefits dependent single mums until the sun goes dark.

NameChange30 · 02/03/2017 16:20

What's "the lord's work"?! Are we religious benefit-bashers now?!

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Swipe left for the next trending thread