Is this a fair way to split costs (mortgage related)?

[babycatcher411]

Person A and Person B want to move in together, but are considering the long and short term implications of doing so.

Person A (who has a child) owns a house, whilst Person B had been intending buying a house (has a deposit). The equity and savings are about equal (this may be relevant later? Not sure)

They have never lived together before so buying together at this point doesn’t seem sensible.

B initially states they are happy to pay half all the bills inc the mortgage.
B makes a comment in a different conversation stating legally (they believe/have been told) that after 3 years living together they would have entitlement over (some of) the property if they’ve paid in, regardless of it being in A’s name.

However A doesn’t think it is fair to B to pay half, as the mortgage is in their name and B would be essentially helping paying off their mortgage for them.
Equally they are concerned should the relationship breakdown that it would give B some entitlement over the house, they do not want this at this early stage of the relationship given they have a child.

A feels however that paying nothing would be unfair as B would be living rent free.

A suggests that B pays just half the interest, thus is paying a ‘cost’ of living in the house but isn’t paying off the equity. So A benefits no more from this than they do sharing the bills which are also a cost of living in the house. But B should also save an equal amount as to the balance of the mortgage that A is paying (hope this makes sense).

So let’s say the mortgage is £400, £100 is interest £300 is against the equity.
A would pay £350
B would pay £50 to the mortgage and save £300, totalling £350 also.

The theory being if they split up, neither is worse of, A has the equity in the house, B has their savings. But that if they live happily ever after together, as is hoped, when it comes to buying a house together, they can both contribute an equal amount towards to joint house.

Does this seem logical? And/or fair? And legally would this protect A’s house/equity should they sadly split up?
A does not want to screw over B, but also wants to protect the interest of their child and their home.

Sorry that was so long, trying to make sure I’ve made it entirely make sense and not drip feed anything

I owned my house when my partner moved in. We agreed we would split the bills, I would pay the mortgage and he would put the money he was saving in rent in a savings account so that he had some money for a deposit on somewhere if we split up. He has a child who was 9 at the time so it was really important he had the security. As it happened things worked out and we eventually put that money towards doing work on the house.

Arguably it wasn’t the most equal way of doing things but I was thinking in terms of what would give both of us the best outcome if we split, rather than dividing things up to the exact penny.

So because she or he is sleeping with the person it should be OK for them to sponge off the home owner?

A should pay all the mortgage. A can throw B out at any time. Plus A is still benefitting, their bills will be halved so they can pay more off their mortgage.

B will be saving on rent and can either (1) keep saving their deposit, allowing their savings to keep pace with A's equity which will also be increasing, and allowing them both to buy a property together in the future, or (2) if things don't work out, B can buy on their own or rent with their saved up money and A doesn't risk their child's home by having to buy out B.

I think if their name isn't on the mortgage paying half the bills and half the interest on the mortgage is fair. They could then invest in their own property of invest their deposit elsewhere.

If B thinks they could end up with a claim on the house, make sure they pay not one penny towards the mortgage or repairs.

So because she or he is sleeping with the person it should be OK for them to sponge off the home owner?

No, but just because you're in a personal relationship with someone it doesn't mean they should pay towards your asset that they don't have a claim on.

And it's not sponging, because A is no worse off by B living there.

When DH and I moved in together the mortgage was in my name. At my insistence I paid it and he did not contribute. The bills were split 50/50. There were a few reasons for this. I wanted to protect myself from any claim on the house by him should we split up (we were very young), I earnt more than him so it seemed reasonable that if I paid the mortgage, and we split the bills the financial split was fair as both of us benefited while neither of us lost out.

If I were person A I would not want person B contributing toward the mortgage at all im order to protect myself from any claim on the house, especially as there is a child living there. I would look at how to split the bills fairly between A and B, and forget the fact that B is 'saving' on rent (presumably money savings is not the motivator for moving in togwther) If B complained then I would not move in with them. And remember that any contributuon financial or physical that B made to improving the house could also mean they have a claim as they could have increased the value of the house.

@smileandsing That's pretty much identical to my and DP's situation (only we're not so young). Not very romantic, but no way was I accepting a penny that might jeopardise ownership of my home.