Should I ask for contribution to cost - WWYD?

[bigdecisionstomake]

Our boiler has died and needs to be replaced. Cost is around £4000 as have decided to change from system boiler to combi.

DP and I live together in my house which I now own outright. I have two young adult DCs, one at Uni who is home for around 4 months of the year and the other who left school last year and is in his first job and currently living at home full time.

DC at Uni obviously doesn’t contribute financially to household while he is at home, working DC does contribute a small amount but I am putting that in a savings account for him as he is saving really hard for a house deposit and I want to be able to give him that money back towards costs/furniture etc...That is obviously my choice.

DP and I earn about the same, his salary is slightly higher but I take home a little more (maybe £250-£300 per month) as I choose to work quite a bit of overtime. I have a small pot of rainy day savings but not enough for the whole amount of the boiler so some will end up on a credit card until I can clear it. DP has similar savings possibly a little more.

I am quite independent financially and don’t like relying on anyone else for money but am aware that sometimes I end up out of pocket because of this. When DP moved in with me around 8 years ago he was originally only contributing a bit towards the food bill. Gradually over time his contribution has increased to 25% of all household costs such as fuel, council tax, water etc... plus a contribution towards food.

I am happy with this although it does sometimes cause problems because he essentially has more disposable income with me and would like more expensive holidays etc... than I can afford. If it is relevant, DP has his own home which he rents out. The rent covers his mortgage so he essentially has no running costs for that house but he has to save a little for repairs and new appliances etc....when needed.

So....to the main question. As it is my house should I pay the whole cost of the new boiler, or as we live together and will both be getting the benefit do I treat it as a running cost and ask DP for a 25% contribution.

YABU - pay for it yourself
YANBU - ask for a contribution

[Mmn654123]

@dontdisturbmenow

It isn’t the norm and it isn’t sexist to say women’s careers are generally negatively impacted by having children. It’s simply fact
Only because that's the choice mothers make. In my world, most women go back to work FT. It's a choice to make to be financially independent.

Hogwash!

Not sure what is driving the massive chip on your shoulder but if you can’t distinguish independence from being taken advantage of, then there is little value discussing it.

[S00LA]

@dontdisturbmenow

It isn’t the norm and it isn’t sexist to say women’s careers are generally negatively impacted by having children. It’s simply fact
Only because that's the choice mothers make. In my world, most women go back to work FT. It's a choice to make to be financially independent.

Many women cannot be “ financially independent “ because they earn less than men and childcare is expensive.

I suggest that you learn more about the system in the Uk before assuming that it’s the same as in your country.

Or you check your privilege.

[S00LA]

Only women can chose to give birth and breast feed.

Maternity leave of 2 weeks minimum is compulsory in the UK.

There is no way for a woman to become a parent that involves less than time off work.

Discrimination against pregnant women and those on maternity leave in endemic in the UK.

It’s not a choice.

[dontdisturbmenow]

It isn’t the norm and it isn’t sexist to say women’s careers are generally negatively impacted by having children. It’s simply fact
Only because that's the choice mothers make. In my world, most women go back to work FT. It's a choice to make to be financially independent.

[Porcupineinwaiting]

Your house, your boiler. Seperate to that is the amount he contributes to live with you. 25% is maybe a bit low, but 50% seems too much to me given that the "children" are yours.

[dontdisturbmenow]

Suggest that you all move into his place with you paying 75pc of the bills but not the mortgage while you rent out your current house and keep the income. This is exactly what he is doing to you. Doesn't seem fair does it?
Nothing wrong with that if both are happy with the other one having no interest in each other's property.

[Mmn654123]

@Iamnotacerealkiller

Suggest that you all move into his place with you paying 75pc of the bills but not the mortgage while you rent out your current house and keep the income. This is exactly what he is doing to you. Doesn't seem fair does it? He is taking advantage of you. You are providing him a home for a very small sum so he can profit from renting his place out. You should be seeing some of that as well.

Exactly!

[Mmn654123]

@dontdisturbmenow

Funny how posters are assuming it's him who doesn't want to commit rather than OP.

OP refers in her first post to 'my House', yet interesting my 'our boiler'.

So posters think that he should be paying rent (but gain none of the rights that tenants are automatically entitled to) because that's what he would otherwise pay (except that he wouldn't be renting but leaving in his house, so the money paid would go towards an investment rather than wasted). This would mean that OP would be making a profit of her partner, not required to pay her mortgage, so to be purely used for her enjoyment, whilst he would be even more worse off, because OP says she has more monthly income than he does by £250-£300.

Yet, when HER boiler breakdown, it suddenly becomes THEIR boiler!

No it’s about the fact he has a rental property and op gains no benefit from that.

[Mmn654123]

@dontdisturbmenow

You moved in with your partner on a clear trajectory to marry and then you married. He owns half your house. You own half his. That’s what marriage does. So again, not remotely similar
That is exactly my point. I would never have agreed to move in with him if his attitude had been that he would never care to share his assets with me. My view is true commitment is accepting risks with benefits.

It's right to be cautious to start with but after 8 years it becomes insulting. So yes, if my oh had taken this attitude, besides the fact I most likely wouldn't have stayed with him, I certainly wouldn't have been paying towards the property they insisted was to remain theirs and theirs only.

You also had children, limiting your earning potential
What a sexist assumption to be making. My earnings were never limited because I had children.

but he has a large excess income because of the rental income
Another uninformed assumption.

I think we are in agreement then. Her OH is taking the piss.

Most women take 6+ months out of the workplace in maternity leave for each pregnancy and on average their earning potential is impacted. Maybe your partner took paternity leave instead. It isn’t the norm and it isn’t sexist to say women’s careers are generally negatively impacted by having children. It’s simply fact. Before you had children it’s a reasonable assumption your partner may have been factoring in. What happened in reality is an individual case of course.

And if his job didn’t change and so his income didn’t change and he generated additional rental income on top then it’s not an uninformed assumption it’s a perfectly rational conclusion based on the facts provided! His extra income is the amount of the rent, ignoring the mortgage, but minus any higher interest for letting and agents fees and occasional redecoration which is all negligible compared to rental income. Plus equity will likely increase over time due to market increases. He must have more cash in his pocket as a result of living with you based on what you have said!

[Iamnotacerealkiller]

Suggest that you all move into his place with you paying 75pc of the bills but not the mortgage while you rent out your current house and keep the income. This is exactly what he is doing to you. Doesn't seem fair does it? He is taking advantage of you. You are providing him a home for a very small sum so he can profit from renting his place out. You should be seeing some of that as well.

[dontdisturbmenow]

You can see how OP is making a profit but don't seem to see how he is too! The question is really is there parity?
Totally agree with that. My comments were playing devils advocate because of the last majority of responses assumed that there wasn't and that it was obvious he was gaining from the arrangement when the reality is that we have no idea that this is the case from the information that was provided.

We also don't know that OP really wants parity overall, at all or selectively.

[CuriousaboutSamphire]

Not really! Most are questioning the financial parity in the relationship and wondering if there has been a full conversation, exploring what the realities are!

You can see how OP is making a profit but don't seem to see how he is too! The question is really is there parity?

[dontdisturbmenow]

Funny how posters are assuming it's him who doesn't want to commit rather than OP.

OP refers in her first post to 'my House', yet interesting my 'our boiler'.

So posters think that he should be paying rent (but gain none of the rights that tenants are automatically entitled to) because that's what he would otherwise pay (except that he wouldn't be renting but leaving in his house, so the money paid would go towards an investment rather than wasted). This would mean that OP would be making a profit of her partner, not required to pay her mortgage, so to be purely used for her enjoyment, whilst he would be even more worse off, because OP says she has more monthly income than he does by £250-£300.

Yet, when HER boiler breakdown, it suddenly becomes THEIR boiler!

[dontdisturbmenow]

You moved in with your partner on a clear trajectory to marry and then you married. He owns half your house. You own half his. That’s what marriage does. So again, not remotely similar
That is exactly my point. I would never have agreed to move in with him if his attitude had been that he would never care to share his assets with me. My view is true commitment is accepting risks with benefits.

It's right to be cautious to start with but after 8 years it becomes insulting. So yes, if my oh had taken this attitude, besides the fact I most likely wouldn't have stayed with him, I certainly wouldn't have been paying towards the property they insisted was to remain theirs and theirs only.

You also had children, limiting your earning potential
What a sexist assumption to be making. My earnings were never limited because I had children.

but he has a large excess income because of the rental income
Another uninformed assumption.

[Shedbuilder]

Yup, Pemba is absolutely right. Does he talk about your future together, OP? About what you'll do when the children have flown? About cashing in on your properties and buying together and formalising your relationship? Or is it all a bit vague?

Is he by any chance one of those men who are planning to retire at 50 or 55 and has found a way to make that possible? There's a bit of a movement around living very cheaply, saving a lot and being able to step out of work and the system as early as possible.

It strikes me that he's done very well to find an independent woman with her own income who doesn't expect him to pay towards family life. He doesn't pay an allowance for rent, just the minimum for council tax, utilities and food, so he's managed to cut his basic costs to the bone. Think how much more he'd be paying each month if he was renting a room in a shared house. So he has minimal outgoings but he works and receives rent from his tenant, enabling him to pay off his mortgage a bit quicker and stash plenty away investments and his pension fund. Meanwhile you are struggling, despite no mortgage, to find £4,000 for a boiler. That's not what a good relationship looks like.

[S00LA]

@Pemba

You have been together for 8 years which is quite a long time, I would have expected there to be more sharing and blending of finances by now.

You say that you arrived at 25% for him to pay towards bills and food, based on there being 'four adults' but they weren't adults then were they? If your younger DC only left school a year ago, they must be about 19? So they would have been only 11 when your DP moved in.

So this guy moves in with a single mother, gets to live rent free, and yet can't even stump up 50% of bills and food? His tenants are paying off his mortgage for him on his own property. He knows you struggle to afford things like holidays and he can't even treat you once in while? What a prince.

I know some will jump in and say 'why should he pay for her kids' food, they're not his kids' but that's bullshit IMO. It takes a special kind of meanmindedness for a person with good wages and their own assets to begrudge paying for some food etc for the DCs of his partner whom he supposedly loves. Especially when he is getting such a sweet deal by living rent free. Has he ever acted in a fatherly way towards them at all, OP?

I am very sorry but I think he has taken advantage of you and your family.

Excellent post

[Mmn654123]

@dontdisturbmenow

So not a remotely similar situation. You didn’t have a property to rent out. Ops partner did
I did have a property to rent out, still is.

So the rental income less tax and agents fees is new income. That is the income he should be splitting with the op
This would be reasonable, but taking every cost into account. Rental properties are more costly in terms of refurbishment and decoration. In all likelihood, assuming he is eating a decent salary, by the time he has paid his mortgage, including capital, and all fees, he is unlikely to have much less to share. This is because rental properties are now taxed much higher, so unless not working or in very low income, the monty income made from one property is minimal if at all. He could even be in the negative each month.

You need to formalise a rental agreement with him
You can't have a legal rental agreement with a partner you share your life with.

The lack of knowledge of the business of renting a property on this thread is quite astonishing.

It takes a special kind of meanmindedness for a person with good wages and their own assets to begrudge paying for some food etc for the DCs of his partner whom he supposedly loves
It takes quite a self centered person who after 8 years of cohabitation doesn't want to share assets from the person they supposedly love.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

You moved in with your partner on a clear trajectory to marry and then you married. He owns half your house. You own half his. That’s what marriage does. So again, not remotely similar. You also had children, limiting your earning potential. And as I have said over and over and over again - the mortgage payment on the rental property doesn’t come into the equation because ops partner was paying that from his salary and not from the rental income before they met. It may have increased a bit but he has a large excess income because of the rental income. Because now he has his salary plus his rental income coming in and he is still just paying out one mortgage.

Your partner was planning to marry you so of course he didn’t care - as soon as you married you co-own both properties.

[dontdisturbmenow]

So not a remotely similar situation. You didn’t have a property to rent out. Ops partner did
I did have a property to rent out, still is.

So the rental income less tax and agents fees is new income. That is the income he should be splitting with the op
This would be reasonable, but taking every cost into account. Rental properties are more costly in terms of refurbishment and decoration. In all likelihood, assuming he is eating a decent salary, by the time he has paid his mortgage, including capital, and all fees, he is unlikely to have much less to share. This is because rental properties are now taxed much higher, so unless not working or in very low income, the monty income made from one property is minimal if at all. He could even be in the negative each month.

You need to formalise a rental agreement with him
You can't have a legal rental agreement with a partner you share your life with.

The lack of knowledge of the business of renting a property on this thread is quite astonishing.

It takes a special kind of meanmindedness for a person with good wages and their own assets to begrudge paying for some food etc for the DCs of his partner whom he supposedly loves
It takes quite a self centered person who after 8 years of cohabitation doesn't want to share assets from the person they supposedly love.

[wombat1a]

You need to formalise a rental agreement with him, one which covers whatever house expenses you think are reasonable, factor in food, soap, shampoo washing powder, future replacement of white goods such as washing machine, oven at a rate of perhaps one every 2 yrs.

If you split up and and he has paid for 1/2 of the your new boiler it could be problematic if he decided to be a t**t and want his half later. Just trying it on would be hassle enough. With a rental agreement you should all know where you stand if it goes all wrong later.

[londonscalling]

If you were to split up (sorry) would he be entitled to half the house? If so, let him pay for half the boiler!

[Pemba]

You have been together for 8 years which is quite a long time, I would have expected there to be more sharing and blending of finances by now.

You say that you arrived at 25% for him to pay towards bills and food, based on there being 'four adults' but they weren't adults then were they? If your younger DC only left school a year ago, they must be about 19? So they would have been only 11 when your DP moved in.

So this guy moves in with a single mother, gets to live rent free, and yet can't even stump up 50% of bills and food? His tenants are paying off his mortgage for him on his own property. He knows you struggle to afford things like holidays and he can't even treat you once in while? What a prince.

I know some will jump in and say 'why should he pay for her kids' food, they're not his kids' but that's bullshit IMO. It takes a special kind of meanmindedness for a person with good wages and their own assets to begrudge paying for some food etc for the DCs of his partner whom he supposedly loves. Especially when he is getting such a sweet deal by living rent free. Has he ever acted in a fatherly way towards them at all, OP?

I am very sorry but I think he has taken advantage of you and your family.

[Mmn654123]

@PostcodeJack

Mmn654123 you could argue my partner is gaining more than the OP's since he has no mortgage to pay and no rent (here or anywhere else). Other than a small contribution to bills, his income is his to spend as he sees fit.

In terms of "extra income" (I believe the OP said that the rent covers the mortgage - not that there is excess profit) if that were to be the case that the OP should benefit from the "additional income" (and I don't see it as that) would she also be expected to stump up towards the mortgage when his house is empty (because surely that should work both ways)?

Your partner isn’t building an asset at your expense. He is in a precarious position long term but that’s between you. If he’s sensible he is investing in something (shares, bonds, pension fund) if not property.

The ops partner was paying a mortgage and is still paying a mortgage. Living with her hasn’t changed that. He is investing in property. His salary funds that investment.

However he is also generating additional income in rent. That is not paying the mortgage. His salary is doing that just as it did before he moved in with op.

So the rental income less tax and agents fees is new income. That is the income he should be splitting with the op.

Otherwise he is profiting from living with her.

Fairness dictates he should share that.

Your partner, if a decent sort, will be making sure you benefit financially by at least half what he is saving in rent. Either by investing it in your name or by treating you to holidays or replacement appliances or whatever works for you. Surely any decent person does that?!

If the ops partners tenant moves out and there is a gap in income then he wouldn’t pay op that month.

[Mmn654123]

@Bibidy

I am so surprised at these replies! The amount of times I've read on here that someone shouldn't be paying rent towards their partner's mortgage and yet most of these responses are the total opposite.

If they had no other property then yes that’s right.

But taking rent from a lodger while not sharing it and also living rent free is taking the xxxx

[PostcodeJack]

Mmn654123 you could argue my partner is gaining more than the OP's since he has no mortgage to pay and no rent (here or anywhere else). Other than a small contribution to bills, his income is his to spend as he sees fit.

In terms of "extra income" (I believe the OP said that the rent covers the mortgage - not that there is excess profit) if that were to be the case that the OP should benefit from the "additional income" (and I don't see it as that) would she also be expected to stump up towards the mortgage when his house is empty (because surely that should work both ways)?

[SimonJT]

I would say while he has no legal stake to the property he shouldn’t be paying for upkeep.