To start paying half the mortgage?

[Astrid84]

I think maybe a little back story for context.

I have DD (12) from previous relationship who I brought up on my own with little to no help from ex partner financially or otherwise. I have always been fiercely independent having had a very rough upbringing and moved away from "home" at 16. I'm now 29.

I worked my ass off to get where I was financially and rented my super cheap flat from the local authority. I then met my OH almost 4 years ago and last year we took the plunge and decided to move in together together. Well we had spoken about it ALOT and I found it so difficult to get to grips with the idea of living with someone else and 'relying' on someone else. We both wanted to move but I was just scared I guess. Eventually I decided one day that I'd hand in my notice to quit and 4 weeks later we moved in...

We agreed at the time now almost 1 year ago that if I moved to his (he owns his flat) that I wouldn't pay anything towards the mortgage because he was in negative equity, (purchase just before the market crashed) it would be a poor investment on my part to pay anything plus I'm not on the mortgage.

I've started feeling guilty about not paying anything towards the mortgage and he briefly mentioned recently in "jokey way" that I should start paying towards half the mortgage but I didn't say anything back. It's got me thinking well anything mentioned in that way is usually a sign of well this is something he wants to bring up but maybe doesn't want to go back on what he said.

Should I be paying my half?

@bananaberry2020 That's not quite right.

Just a quick search of internet www.theguardian.com/money/2019/sep/23/first-time-buyer-home-help-to-buy-isa-stamp-duty-relief

I am still classed as a first time buyer for my help to buy ISA.

Hi OP, you might need to check if you would qualify as a first time buyer - I don't because (even thought I've never owned/ bought a property) I live with my OH who has a mortgage on our house. I was shocked to find that out! I moved in with him and thought we could benefit when we moved to a bigger place by me applying for the mortgage being a first time buyer. Apparently not!

You've been given wrong advice

If your OH has a mortgage in his name only and you are not named on this you can still get a life time ISA (IF you don't already have one) help to buy ISA was stopped in NOv 19 I got mines before this date.

I’m always confused on these threads why people are up in arms about the idea of paying towards someone else’s mortgage unless you’re named on it. You don’t get named on a normal landlord’s mortgage, you’re paying to have a roof over your head. Just because you’re living with the person who owns the property I don’t see why you shouldn’t still be paying towards having a roof over your head! And you don’t get to demand to be put on the deeds in return when that person presumably put down a large deposit and has paid the mortgage on their own for some time. Yes you could do a deed to protect their investment and add you on now, but I don’t think that’s the person’s right to insist.

I lived with DH in his own flat for a couple of years before we bought a place together and of course I paid a contribution on top of bills. Still worked out cheaper than renting alone and he got a bit to help with his mortgage payments-everyone happy. If I owned a place and my partner and their child moved in while I still paid the whole mortgage that would not be ok with me, and if a man did it the cries of cocklodger would be deafening!

Although to add, if you’re thinking over a period of several years ahead and your own ambition is to own property then you need to discuss together whether you buying into his place or buying a second place together would be a good plan. I agree I wouldn’t live somewhere for years on end without either buying into it or buying a rental in my own name, because it matters to me to own a home. But in the shorter time I certainly wouldn’t expect to live rent free, especially with an older child as well, while my partner pays all housing costs.

*term, not time.

OP
You won’t get the government bonus on your help to buy ISA on a later property if you get added to your OHs mortgage or the deeds. Right now you are still a first time buyer, but you won’t be if you do get added.

The rules say
“To qualify for the government bonus, the property you are buying must:

-be in the UK
-have a purchase price of up to £250,000 (or up to £450,000 in London)
be the only home you will own
-be where you intend on living
-be purchased with a mortgage”

And
“Does the fact I have opened a Help to Buy: ISA mean I automatically qualify for a government bonus?
No. You need to be a first time buyer and the property you are purchasing needs to cost less than the house price cap of £250,000 or less (or £450,000 or less in London).”

So, if you are added to your OHs mortgage or the deeds, you will become part owner of your OHs home. Therefore, you will lose the help to buy bonus because you forfeit your first time buyer status. A first time buyer is someone who does not own, and has never owned, a home anywhere in the UK or the world.

You need to be aware of the pros and cons of being added.

I haven't given up any security I having moved from my LA flat. It was a terrible place to live and the only good thing about it was cheap rent. I can afford a private let if needs be but I won't need to think of that.

But you had a secure tenancy. Now you have no housing rights at all as you're not on the deeds of the house you live in and you're not married. A private let does not offer the same security as a Council tenancy - what if the landlord wanted to sell up after a short while, what if you lost your job etc. I'm just clarifying this for those who may be considering making the same choices.

Your relationship sounds stable but, as a long term user of Mumsnet, barely a week goes by without a poster finding themselves in terrible trouble as they have given up their security in this way.

Totally agree with @Rainycloudyday.

I never understand the mindset of “I refuse to pay my partners mortgage !”... yet they would often have no problem paying some unrelated third party landlord’s mortgage. Quite frankly I think it’s an appalling attitude.

People should pay their way. In this case, it is the OP’s responsibility to pay for costs associated with her child (in her updates there seems to be an attempt at justifying not paying rent because her outgoings are higher due to her child), which includes the costs of accommodation, bills etc...

People should pay their way. In this case, it is the OP’s responsibility to pay for costs associated with her child (in her updates there seems to be an attempt at justifying not paying rent because her outgoings are higher due to her child), which includes the costs of accommodation, bills etc...

If I were single again and a home owner with a mortgage and a partner who I presumably loved and wanted to share my life with moved in, I’d be happy as long as they covered their costs. I certainly wouldn’t charge them rent. It feels very money grabbing to me.

Is housing not a cost? To me paying towards rent or mortgage is covering the costs of housing. Roof over head and all that.

I squirrel away a lot in savings, yes, but the amount we both pay towards the house is the same and if we broke up tomorrow, he would be the one with the asset, not me.

See, now I wouldn’t want to put my partner in an unequal position like that.

If I’m the mortgaged home owner and charge rent as some of you do, in the even of a break up I’m better off as my asset has increase and I have security of a roof over my head, but my partner would be worse off, no asset and having to find money for deposits etc.

Much fairer if we each pay our fair share of joint bills, I pay my mortgage which is something only I am liable for and they pay into savings/buy to let or whatever they choose so they have some security too.

I’m actually shocked that so many people would want to put their partners in such vulnerable and unequal positions.

It’s not a joint cost in my opinion.

Rent is different because neither partner is gaining anything more than the other (i.e. an asset and additional housing security)

I live with my DP and rent out my own flat since moving in. Rent from my flat covers the mortgage there and I pay DP half the cost of his mortgage and bills. As it happens, just discovered after a year that DP has been paying the mortgage in full and he's putting my share in a savings account to put towards our forever house. Pleasant surprise but irrespective of what he's done with it, I'd need to pay rent or mortgage wherever I stay so I don't have any problem paying towards the costs of his flat.

Its not putting a partner into an unequal or vulnerable situation because the “inequality” of you as home owner and the partner as private renter existed prior to the relationship. That is even if you buy the cultural maxim that home owner is above private renter which I do not personally agree with. Both are equal to each other, one just prioritises security and the other flexibility.

I think it is an unequal partnership if two approximately equal earning partners live together and one partner pays 100% of the housing cost. Doesn’t matter if the housing cost is a mortgage.
(And please understand that houses do not always increase in value. Having a mortgage is not risk free. Your investment could lose you money. If you are a renter, you avoid both the risk and the reward, and do not have to pay maintenance and can move at the drop of a hat.)

I would pay him the going rate for rent or half the mortgage, whichever is cheaper and would consider it your rent whether he decides to put it towards his mortgage or not. I can’t understand why some pp’s are saying only if you are on the mortgage, surely it doesn’t matter, you should pay your way?

Signing on to a mortgage for a house in negative equity is INSANE. DON'T DO IT!!!! Instead of financial Hari Kiri in the name of feminism, plan your financial future like adults. You can contribute by saving for a deposit, putting into an ISA, paying 'rent' or bills, or even putting more into your pension. Any of those is responsible and acceptable in this situation and will contribute to a stable financial future for your family.

@Wrenna being on the mortgage would legally recognise OP as having a share in the property. Normally if you are putting money in over years you would probably want that (in case of death, relationship goes south etc). In this case, if the house is indeed in negative equity, being on the mortgage would make OP liable for any shortfall if the house were sold. She could be on the hook for thousands.

Rules may be different in Scotland but AFAIK if buying jointly, you both have to be first time buyers to benefit from any assistance.

Of course you should pay something. If you lived with a friend you'd pay them some rent so you need to do this here.

If you are paying half, your name should be on the title to the property, or document it legally, so that you own half the property. You should have equity in the property, as at the fair market value of the property on the date you start paying half the mortgage. So, your OH will still have his equity up to the date you contribute, but you have an interest in any increase in value thereafter.

There is a strong possibility given the current situation that that "asset" is likely to become a gigantic liability. I would avoid going on the mortgage but still give him money towards it, if you feel guilty about not contributing.

I am guessing you are very young and don't remember what happened to properly values in the 70's, 80's, 90's and to a lesser extent 2008, which should have been the Big Bad of all collapses and would have been if the government hadn't frantically printed money...ops, sorry, "quanitively eased."

If there was ever a time for cold, clear-eyed self-interest it's now.

So the OP has given up her own security In the form of a LA secure tenancy. AND posters want her to put her name on a mortgage for a property in NEGATIVE EQUITY ? As we enter a Covid and Brexit driven recession?

If the relationship were to break down she and her child would be in debt and homeless.

No wonder so many women end up so vulnerable.

Is it still in negative equity? How much? That is not clear, and I read OP's post as if he is no longer in a negative position.

I was in a similar position to your DP when my DP moved in. I didn't want him to have a claim on my house (hard-won as it was) so he didn't pay any rent despite going halves on the rest of the bills. He used this saving to build up a deposit and has recently bought his own house. I paid off my mortgage. Now we both have financial security.

Grey areas, for us, were/are insurance and maintenance costs. We found it obvious to go halves on a new washing machine but replacing a broken garden fence was a bit more ambiguous.