AIBU?? Partner living in my house for free but it's crippling me financially

[Moneys2Tight2Mention]

This may be long!!!!

I didn’t think I was being unreasonable but the reaction I have received from my boyfriend makes me feel like I have been!

I live in a mortgaged (interest only – this is relevant) house. The deposit was given to me by my parents and I cover all bills/mortgage etc. I went through a really tough time last year and my boyfriend of three months ended up staying over a lot. That has gone from “staying over a lot” to never actually going home and he has lived in the property rent free for the best part of a year now. He used to live with (and is officially registered at) his parents rent-free at their large house. I have never asked for a penny in rent etc and I have actually said to him on occasion when he has offered me a token gesture that it costs me the same whether he’s there or not and I don’t want his money.

He is very generous with me, when we go out he pays for absolutely everything. He often picks up dinner etc on the way home and I rarely have to pay for any food shopping. We have a good social life and are always out and about, he will rarely let me pay for anything despite the fact that I insist on occasion! He is self-employed and takes home a good wage. He puts a lot of money into savings every month.

Recently I have had an increase in outgoings elsewhere in my life. My work have also cut my hours and it’s got to the point where I am struggling financially. Yesterday I wrote down all of my outgoings and realised that they total a lot more than my take home wage therefore I am cutting into savings every month just to get by.

I had a conversation with him about this last night, I worked out that all in the house costs me £1200 a month (interest only mortgage and bills) and asked him for a small amount of money (suggested £100 a week) to help me out so I’m not always dipping into savings every month.

What ensued was really surprising to me!! He said that essentially he didn’t want to hand over money like that as he would be “paying off my mortgage” (interest only for the record – however he did not know this) for me. He threw back in my face that I always said that it costs the same to have him here than to not, and that he could just live at home for free so why would he pay me rent. He also said that if he paid me £100 a week and we had an argument, that he wouldn’t be entitled to anything back and would have essentially “lost” that money and be “throwing it away”.

I explained that my house is actually on an interest only mortgage as that’s all I can afford currently, so I am essentially not paying off my mortgage either, however have been “throwing away” £1200 for the pair of us to have a roof over our heads for the last year. I said that even if he gave me £100 tomorrow, he would have still had a year of “free living” from me so would no way be out of pocket. He also said he didn’t want to rent so that he could save money every month for “our future” – which is very well and good however I am draining my savings just so that he can live rent-free… I am going into the red every month whilst he furnishes his savings account.

We argued back and forth about this for about an hour and in the end he begrudgingly agreed to pay me the £100 a month. I can tell he’s unhappy about this and I am therefore unhappy about this too. There’s a huge elephant in the room today and we both have a bitter taste in our mouths and a sense of unfairness.

AIBU??? Should I just ask him for half the bills instead?

Thanks all

It doesn't matter what someone's finances are, if someone is taking the piss financially they are a leech x

At least she won't be paying for a leech x

She wasn't paying for him before!

She was, read the bloody post and stop being so dim

How sensible the OP was to step away from the thread just before the Friday evening wine o'clock crew turned up to have a go.

Getting carried away, I'm stepping away from the support a leech thread, carry on, peace n out 😂

If he was leeching, why is she now worse off financially?

At the start of this thread she was down on her hours hence her asking for his help in the first place. Prior to that she was dipping into her savings.

Firstly she is better off just not having that man in her life. He is still a child who has literally gone running home to Mummy.

She may be a bit stuck for cash right now and while her parents are helping her out briefly that is only a short-term thing. The difference is whilst he had the funds to contribute he just didn't have the maturity to grow up and live in the real world. He was quite happy to live rent-free for a year - who does that unless they really are a CF. He was also quite happy to play the big man and pay for meals out etc but real life he just wasn't interested in.

I have no doubt the OP will get her finger out, get another job or a new job or whatever it takes to keep her house and manage the bills etc.

So whether financially or emotionally - either way she is much better off.

HE IS VERY GENEROUS WITH ME, WHEN WE GO OUT HE PAYS FOR ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING. HE OFTEN PICKS UP DINNER ETC ON THE WAY HOME AND I RARELY HAVE TO PAY FOR ANY FOOD SHOPPING. WE HAVE A GOOD SOCIAL LIFE AND ARE ALWAYS OUT AND ABOUT, HE WILL RARELY LET ME PAY FOR ANYTHING
Does he see this as his contribution .If he starts paying rent then you can't expect him to carry on paying this .Unless you want him to have a claim on your house I would not get him to contribute to your mortgage.So for him to pay his way it's half the utilities but then it would only be fair for you to pay half the food and pay half when you are out .Think you would be worse off .

This thread is highly unsatisfactory.
The OP keeps banging on about "paying her mortgage" (or to help her out), while most of the advice was to analyse outgoings and see how much would be his fair contribution to the joint expenses (not the house as such). Even if him living there added little to gas/electricity/etc, as a partner he should have been paying half, not rely on the OP to provide him with a warm home, etc without contributing. But I don't think even the OP has calculated how much he contributed in food and any other possible expenses.
I'm leaving the eating out costs, because those are extras, after all the bills have been covered.
In a normal partnership, if a partner is much better off and wants to go to expensive places, then they should cover most of the costs, or stick to places that the less well off partner can afford.

Still, I think the main problem here is that the OP saw him as his partner (future husband), while this man didn't see it in the same way.

Better to end it now, than after two years or more.

He is the ultimate c.f.! Dump him now.
Maybe consider a lodger?
You're being too nice OP

Aw OP, I find this so sad. This is one of those threads where posters forget this is someone's life and egg on drama and arguments.

I think if it wasn't for your initial typo saying £100 per month instead of week you would have had very different answers and more measured advice. Instead you got lots of people that couldn't get past that initial kneejerk of cocklodger telling you to lay down ultimatums and that you're totally sorts right.

Personally, I think he should have been asked from the start to contribute half of gas/electric/food and for you to be paying your own way socially. You weren't though so you can't just change the status quo and expect him to be happy with that. And you certainly can't say to anyone whether it be a boyfriend or great aunt - stop buying me nice things and give me cold hard cash!

'Bye OP, Best of luck!

StrippingtheVelvet and you certainly can’t say to anyone be it a boyfriend or great aunt - stop buying me nice things and give me cold hard cash. No cos there’s another name for that altogether

That is a remarkably poisonous thing to say.

I love all the posters who have just spotted that the BF earns £2-3K a week ( £130k pa) so now think she should get him back .

Even though the Op says they want different things in life ? Even though she had to ASK him to pay 4% of his weekly income to pay for his own living costs and he was angry and resentful that she had even asked?

Thank goodness the OP has higher standards than some people posting here .

People are still failing to see this isn't about the money.

The op was seeing them living together in a long term, committed relationship that would end in marriage within a couple of years.

She made an assumption.
As he hasn't had a night away from my house in almost a year, except for nights away and holidays, then I think it's safe to assume he thinks we're living together

But
The partner was seeing himself as her boyfriend who treated her on nights out, in return for staying over. He didn't view himself as living with her officially. It had just evolved into being convenient and fun for them both for him to stay. He hadn't in his eyes felt he'd made a commitment to her whereas she assumed he had.

This new financial crisis meant that it suddenly dawned on him that the op saw their whole relationship differently to him. He thought they were just dating. She thought they were living together. It was a bit of a shock for him to realise this and his gut reaction was to complain about the £100. But it was never about the money. The op said he was very generous and had also offered money towards bills and such in the past. She'd refused. It was only on realising that she thought they were a serious couple who needed to do serious coupley things such as staying in more and cutting back on treats, that he realised their differences in outlook. He panicked and made it about the money when really it was nothing about the money at all.

When they actually discussed their relationship, they split up because

Because we want different things from life. I wanted to get married within the next couple of years, with all of my focus in life geared towards that. His attitude of "I don't want to pay off your mortgage" just speaks volumes to me that he wasn't geared up towards the same thing.

It was crunch time in their relationship, which happens in all relationships. Either you properly commit or you need to finish. Unfortunately for the op the obvious decision was to split. That's awful but better now than realising a few more years down the line. The op wants kids. She can't afford to dilly dally around dating. He has got all the time in the world.

I remember saying to boyfriends when I was that age. "If at any point you realise that there isn't a long term future for us, please let me know as I haven't got time to just stay in a relationship that isn't going anywhere - no matter how much fun we are having in the process."

The op has done the right thing. Hopefully after a period of grieving for the relationship she thought she had, she can move on and find the right person for her. Just as many people on this thread have said they have.

It's tough actually finishing a fun relationship. But she's been brave and hopefully it's short term pain for long term gain.

I don't think the ex is the evil cocklodger that most people have portrayed him as. They are just at different life stages and the ops financial crisis was the catalyst for realising this.

I'm a bit torn. It sounds like he was paying for more than half of living expenses (food and social life probably costing more than bills) and did initially offer contributions to the other bills.

I don't think he has been a financial weight on the OP, he had made her living situation more comfortable. That said, it's still fair to question if he was doing enough.

I think he should have been asked to pay half the bills. I think paying for food and social occasions is a fair off-set for not paying rent anywhere.

As to whether OP has dodged a long term bullet, that depends on how he genuinely saw the future and was really saving money, as he said, for their future together (and maybe buying a place together).

I think this might have gone nuclear far too quickly as a result of being egged on by posters on here.

Hopefully the OP can deal with the financial fallout.

And the thread title is obviously completely wrong. The OP is in a financial mess and is being subsidized by her parents and, up until now, had also relied on her boyfriend's contributions; she just felt he could be contributing more (which is probably fair).

I don't think he has been a financial weight on the OP, he had made her living situation more comfortable. That said, it's still fair to question if he was doing enough.

And he did offered to pay £100 a week in the end. Which on balance means that's extra.
But OP wanted him to want to do it.

Anyway I hope they manage to sort it out. I think they can get past this.

And he did offer to make those contributions initially. His reaction on being asked more recently might be as a result of how the OP broached it. He may have been happy to contribute more, but not happy at being blamed for OP's financial woes.

I hope they can sort it out too. Seemed like it just needed a non-accusatory, forward-looking conversation. Let's hope this thread hasn't fucked things up too much.

I think some PPs have an over inflated idea of their own power and influence!

Honestly, no Mumsnet thread can make someone do something they don't want to know. If the OP split up with her boyfriend, it's because she wanted to.

The advice on here can often give people the validation and confidence to do what they probably already knew, deep down, they should do. But people who disagree with the advice, or aren't ready to follow it, don't follow it.

Get over yourselves, people. The OP made the right decision and there's no point blaming PPs.

they don't want to know do

Sometimes times the stock answer for any problem on mn is LTB.
Whether or not the thread actually egged op on or not is irrelevant.
There were other solutions they could have been applied.
But now they've split up and both are miserable.
It's a Shame if they don't find a way through this.

Her living costs will be lower without him as her bills will be reduced and she can go back to the 25% council tax discount.

The food he paid for, she has explained she didn't eat as she eats at work most of the time, so this was only minimal and for himself. As for the socialising and eating out - well, we all have to reduce that when we're short of money so it's not unexpected.

I think on balance she'll be better off. He sounds like he's not quite with it when it comes to working together as a partnership.

He waa paying food and social outings (which are discretionary and not necessary). So, all in all, his contribution was food. There's more costs in a household than food. Electricity, gas, water etc etc. Split the costs of living 50/50 and OP pays property expenses is fair.

I've dated exactly the now ex partner. They live for free at home, make no contributions, spend how they want. That's totally different IMO to being a house owner who has it a bit tough for a spell and greatfully accepts assistance from their parents to help with this short term. Property ownership is doing something with your money. Bludging at home off your parents isn't.