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

[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.

[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!

[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]

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.

[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.

[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!

[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]

@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!

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.