Very difficult situation DP v DBro. AIBU for DBro to charge DP rent?

[Jetsetterf]

I'm buying a flat in joint names with DBro. DBro is putting money into the flat as an investment but the flat is being bought for me to live in.

The flat is in a different city to where DP currently lives. I've previously said to DP if he moves in I wouldn't charge him rent. DP has applied for a job in the city where the flat is.

I wouldn't charge DP rent on my share but would DBro be unreasonable to charge DP a reduced rate of rent on his share?

DP is now angry at me because I didn't tell him he may have to pay rent on DBro's share and he said he wouldn't have applied for the job in the city the flat is in if he had known. I said I wouldn't charge him rent, but I have no control over DBro's share and surely he is being unreasonable to expect DBro to let him live there rent free?

Oh this sounds so messy. I think best bet is to forget you're buying with your brother, and think what would be a fair arrangement if you were buying with a stranger

Basically, you own one half of the flat, so you should pay 50% of the mortgage. Your DB owns the other half, so he is liable to pay the other 50% of the mortgage. In normal circumstances, it would be reasonable for him to receive rent from your DP (basically half the rental value, less presumably some family / known tenant discount). However, you've put a spanner in the works by telling your DP that he can live rent free. I don't blame DP for being angry that you've misled him, if he's been happy to live rent-free with his parents until he can buy a place of his own

Do expected to live rent free because he was told it will be rent free

DP is saving for his own place so doesn't want to pay rent to anyone

Probably best he stays at home, then

Whose idea was it, for him to move into yours? Did you coax him to do so by promising him no rent? Or was he pushing to move in with you ?

Do you have any idea why you said 'I won't charge you rent' rather than 'I won't charge you rent but DB might, we must talk to him'

OP, have your parents been involved in any discussions about this? It all sounds such a strange arrangement

And, are your mortgage lenders aware of this arrangement? How do they think the mortgage will be paid? Who do they think will be living in the flat? Do they think DP will be paying rent?

I really don’t understand how your parents can’t split the pot- it’s a huge pot!!!

So many financial red flags. Walk away.

How much has DP saved up? Why not buy with him instead?

Christ, don't buy with him! Why would you want to financially tie yourself in with a man who thinks that other people should support him while he saves up??

Pettycontractor
The ops brother doesn’t own half the house. He owns 5k in the house at most, less if you consider solicitors fees. I assume there is no stamp duty. The house is a savings scheme for both of the adult children. Nothing more. One of them is choosing to live in the savings scheme. The other is choosing to live in his parents house rent free. Both should be rent free due to the paltry amount each adult child is putting in. Your calculations are meaningless.

If the house is in joint names, the brother does indeed own half of it.

If the house is in joint names, the brother does indeed own half of it.
Legally yes. Morally no. Therefore on paper only.

If the brother pays nothing toward the mortgage plus gets £200 per month from ops dp, he will have made back his 5k investment within 15 months.

From then on he’s making £330 to pay mummy and daddy back whilst op is £130 down a month.

As a result her 4K investment is worth £460 less a month than her brothers.

Her brother is living rent free at home living the life of Riley. Op should be allowed the same, to live rent free in a house owned almost exclusively by family members other than her brother.

What part of that is not clear?

Half the substantial loans are to the brother. Having them tied up in this flat will prevent him from buying somewhere else for himself.

The flat is indeed a savings scheme, with an assumption that its value will rise.

It's going to get interesting when one party wants to access 'their capital' and the other doesn't want to sell. Especially if the market changes so it's hard to sell.

Lottie
I agree. It’s a bonkers idea and very unfair on both op and her brother. She never did come back and explain if she could borrow half and get a small studio.

I think she may have realised there's a little problem with defrauding a mortgage lender into giving her a FTB mortgage, with the loaned deposit belonging to people who are not FTBs.

"Doesn't want to pay for anyone else's mortgage so has to live rent-free? Fuck off"

This also describes OP and her brother. They're both living with their parents currently. Are they also "scrounging little gits"?

If the brother pays nothing toward the mortgage plus gets £200 per month from ops dp, he will have made back his 5k investment within 15 months.

25, surely?

25, surely?

I was going on the basis of £200 from ops partner plus his half of the mortgage, which he isn’t paying and is thus a saving, which I added to the consideration of “making back”. This is circa £130 and paid by op, which comes to £4950 after 15 months.

Obviously I can see where you get the 25 months from, a little less if we also take into consideration a small amount of the capital will have been paid off.

But whichever way you look at it’s, it’s a phenomenal return... and fraudulent.

Don’t get the maths stuff at all.
If your BF has been living at home and not paying keep on the basis he is saving up for a property deposit then I don’t see anything wrong with that.
Somehow it feels offensive though to say that if he isn’t able to continue saving for a deposit living for free with you then he will no longer want to live with you. It’s the emotional side of it that’s wrong surely if you are sufficiently in love to be forecasting marriage he would want to live with you? And a relatively nominal amount of rent wouldn’t be a deal breaker ?

Regarding paying your brothers share of the mortgage, I don't understand why you would do this. Just raise the extra £500, (half of the £1000 extra) that brother was going to pay, and go 50/50. If he doesn't move in then you pay 109% of bills, if he does, or rents his bit out then 50/50 on these too.
Regarding your boyfriend, are you sure you want to marry this cocklodger? Whatever gave you the silly idea of saying you wouldn't charge him rent anyway? He clearly expects to pay nothing, are you expected to do his washing & cooking too??

He wants to live off his dick.

LOL!

Blackberry, I love it!

On a serious note, haven't we had more than enough of these kinds of men?!

This makes no sense! I’m a solicitor and I would never enter into this kind of financial agreement. If your parents are in a position to loan you both money there’s no reason why this has to be done jointly and certainly it doesn’t make legal or financial sense to do it in this way. I appreciate it just being in your name OP won’t prevent your brother from buying somewhere himself but surely if his money plus grandparents and parents is going into a property solely in your name he’s financially worse off. Is there a particular reason it’s not going in joint names? If both grandparents and parents are loaning money to buy the property regardless of their names being on the mortgage they’re going to have a potential equitable interest, financial arrangements like this can make mortgage lenders very wary, have you spoken to a mortgage advisor OP?
As for DP’s position I understand his point of view, if he’s living rent free and saving for a property why would he leave that comfortable position to live with OP and pay rent. If he was told he wouldn’t be expected to contribute then he’s not being a CF in being unhappy about having to pay DB rent when/if he was explicitly told by OP he wouldn’t. OP both you and your DB need to get independent legal and financial advice on this one.

did OP ever return ??