To charge my partner rent?

[roomfulloflove]

My partner and I would like to live together. I've found a house in a location suitable to both of us. From my divorce I'm able to buy the house by myself, and my brain (rather than my heart) knows that's the sensible thing to do.

We've talked about him living with me there and he said he'd pay rent.

It certainly seems the right thing to do, but I feel really uncomfortable about it, like it will change the whole dynamic between us.

Is anyone in a similar situation where they've done something similar?

@Lorw

Why don’t you both just rent before both deciding to buy at a later date? Moving into your house gives him no security and you’re profiting off him. I just think you should be on equal footing from the get go.

He would profit off her by not paying as much as he would renting.

I don't charge my boyfriend any rent. I don't want him to have any share of my property.

We obviously share the other bills 50/50 food elec etc. I pay anything house related.

He saved the £600 in rent he was paying before into an account so he'd have a lump sum to put into something we buy together.

No one should pay towards a mortgage on a house which is not in their name. That's the way to get shafted. Lodgers and tenants might well pay off someone else's mortgage through their rent but I would never treat a partner like a tenant.

A mortgage is different to any other household expense because you end up with a permanent asset at the end of it. He should pay his share of all of the other bills but should only pay into the mortgage when his name is on it. In the meantime, after his share of the other expenses have been paid, his money should be used to settle his debts, build his credit score and save towards his share of the deposit for when you do eventually buy together.

[quote HamAndButterSandwich]@TwoAndAnOnion

Your comment is completely illogical. Read it back. It makes no sense whatsoever. Person A isn't a landlord but the partner of person B. A landlord only lets you live in their house because they want to make profit out of you. In a relationship the point of moving in isn't to make profit. They want to live together. It makes sense to share the financial benefit from that. So Person A benefits because Person B contributes to the house in some way (certainly by halving the bills and probably also by mainting the house and paying some money towards it) and Person B benefits by paying less than they would for a private rental. Why should person B have to live in a house they haven't actually chosen themselves and have no security in (if they split they'll have to move out) an still pay market rent while Person A is getting help paying off their mortgage. Completely unequal.[/quote]
So in your world Person A pays for everything because it's their house, Person B gets to move in, buy half the groceries and utilities and get laid too? Person B broadly get to keep their salary and pay nothing whatsoever towards the roof over their head because someone else will own it in 25 years.

Interesting take.

On any other thread, the word 'cocklodger' would be bandied about.

@TwoAndAnOnion If you hate your partner so much just don't move in with them! Getting laid should be fun for both people surely!

Read my comment back slowly. It says very clearly that person B should make a contribution to both the upkeep of the house and bills. BOTH people should benefit financially from living together. Person A benefits because their partner has contributed to both bills and upkeep person B benefits because they've paid less rent and so been able to save for their own place.

is a long-term relationship and presumably equal. The board say Person B should be saving his portion of rent money to buy his own house hmm - why?
Because when you pay rent, you don't accrue capital. There is no right or wrong. Renters pay and get no capital, people who let their property get income and capital. Couples who live in one property get capital but no income.

OP wants rent and capital whereas he doesn't even get the benefits that come with being a tenant. Lodgers get nothing, but lodging is normally planned short term situation.

It's the opposite, paying rent prevents them from being able to claim an interest in the house
That's totally incorrect. OP's parner can't be a tenant because she lives there too, so any tenancy wouldn't be invalid. He also can't be legally a lodger because a partner can't legally be a lodger. So anything he pays towards the house can indeed be considered as building an interest in the house. There are many such cases that have been won in courts.

Of course he should pay rent. If he lived somewhere else then he would be paying rent and half of the bills.
A quick straw poll of my DD’s (in their 20’s) suggests that they are paying on average £600 per month on rent (not London).

If you are only charging half the bills I am sure you could get thousands of people to live with you who would do 100% of the housework as well.

If he lived somewhere else then he would be paying rent and half of the bills
But he isn't living elsewhere, that's the point. He has no rights at all by living with OP that he would get if he was renting.

This is not a business transaction, it's two people who care for eachother and want to see if they can build a future together. Any savings he gets will go back into a family together if it works. If the relationship doesn't work, he has gained some savings and OP will have gained equity in her house, so both gets something for the time spent together.

I also saw it as why should I financially profit out having my partner live with me?

Charging him rent would just give me more money, seemed wrong. Yes he benefits too but he can also be chucked out at a moments notice.

If he was not here I'd not get a paying lodger in.

The plan is generally to buy together at some stage but currently no need to move so we don't.

(Mine also owned 2 houses he rented out when we met so financially had his own property interests)

@TwoAndAnOnion I'm not disagreeing with you, but Person B has zero home security either. They can be kicked out at any time, with no notice, if the relationship sours. Personally I'd put a big price on that, not sure about others.

Bills 50/50. He sets up a joint savings account, in both names, with both needing signatures to withdraw, investing his “rent”. IF you split, you get 50/50 otherwise it can be used in the future oh house improvements, wedding, moving etc

Absolutely buy it yourself. He can pay half of utilities/bills.

@AnneLovesGilbert

He should save the rent to buy somewhere for himself. He should pay half the bills.

Are your earnings similar? Will you have a mortgage?

Why shouldn't he pay for his keep? Why should he live rent free??

@LittleMissnotLittleMrs

Bills 50/50. He sets up a joint savings account, in both names, with both needing signatures to withdraw, investing his “rent”. IF you split, you get 50/50 otherwise it can be used in the future oh house improvements, wedding, moving etc

Sounds like a really good idea.

@Atalantea Because OP is choosing the house and has all the security. If the relationship ends she'll presumably want him out leaving him in a precarious situation. Any investment, both in terms of time and money, will have gone. He doesn't necessarily contribute nothing but he should be paying way below the market rate. OP is his partner not a landlord, presumably she's moving in with him to make the relationship work not to profit.

@LittleMissnotLittleMrs

Bills 50/50. He sets up a joint savings account, in both names, with both needing signatures to withdraw, investing his “rent”. IF you split, you get 50/50 otherwise it can be used in the future oh house improvements, wedding, moving etc

If she is entitled to 50% of his savings why isn’t he entitled to 50% of hers?

@SimonJT

She's not entitled to 50% of his savings. This would be a specific savings account in which he puts the money he would be spending on rent. That way they both benefit equally from the living situation. If the relationship works out they can do home improvements, spend it on a wedding or holiday. If not he has some money to put on a new place and she has money to compensate for wear and tear of another person.

@vivainsomnia

is a long-term relationship and presumably equal. The board say Person B should be saving his portion of rent money to buy his own house hmm - why? Because when you pay rent, you don't accrue capital. There is no right or wrong. Renters pay and get no capital, people who let their property get income and capital. Couples who live in one property get capital but no income.

OP wants rent and capital whereas he doesn't even get the benefits that come with being a tenant. Lodgers get nothing, but lodging is normally planned short term situation.

It's the opposite, paying rent prevents them from being able to claim an interest in the house
That's totally incorrect. OP's parner can't be a tenant because she lives there too, so any tenancy wouldn't be invalid. He also can't be legally a lodger because a partner can't legally be a lodger. So anything he pays towards the house can indeed be considered as building an interest in the house. There are many such cases that have been won in courts.

My father has just been through all this (we're in Northern Ireland so it may be different here).

Dad lives in our childhood home (mum died 15 years ago) and he now has a new partner. They want to live together, but Dad doesn't want new partner to have an interest in the house and he wants us (me, sister and brother) to inherit.

He got legal advice and an agreement was drew up that his partner would pay an agreed amount of rent while living there, that was not a contribution to the house. It was explained to dad that should she move in, any contribution to the mortgage, upkeep, bills repairs etc would prove she had a financial interest in the house. For example, if the roof was damaged and needed repaired, and they went 50/50 with the repairs, she would now have a financial interest. If the mortgage was split 50/50 - she would have a financial interest - she's contributed to 50% of the mortgage over a certain length of time and so would be entitled to a certain percentage of the house to reflect that.

Instead, Dad charges her rent and he covers all bills, repairs etc (and of course if he wishes to use the rent paid to him he can) and his new partner only splits groceries with him.

Happy to be corrected if wrong, and apologies if I'm passing on incorrect information, but this was the advice of his solicitor and he was able to draw up a contract to protect dad's house.

(I know it all sounds cold, she's a really lovely woman and we all get on really well and are glad dad is happy - he just wants us to inherit the house he and mum worked so hard for and raised us in).

@lgz11

Glad to see your Dad is switched on.. good on him

@burnoutbabe

I don't charge my boyfriend any rent. I don't want him to have any share of my property.

We obviously share the other bills 50/50 food elec etc. I pay anything house related.

He saved the £600 in rent he was paying before into an account so he'd have a lump sum to put into something we buy together.

And if you split up he has a lovely sum saved, having lived rent free at your expense.

I think OP, he should pay the utilities and food bills, but the utilities obviously remain in your name.

I certainly don't think he should be only paying 50% of bills and food.

See how that compares to what he pays now.

He should be ahead a bit, but still paying his way with no rights to your house.

Emotions have no place when it comes to finances.

Don't move in with a man that you are not comfortable speaking plainly to about money.

Yes he'd have £30k or so saved up by now after 10+ years if I kicked him out now.

But that's fine, why should i begrudge him that?

If he paid me that money I'd have both my flat plus £30k saved up! He'd have nothing. That's hardly fair.

Now, it's a bit different if say I was claiming benefits and lost them if he moved in, but that's not the case here.

Some takes on here are weird, how can you say you wouldn't want to profit off your partner by asking them to contribute to a mortgage they're not benefiting from, when they're definitely benefiting off of you even if they do contribute.

At the end of the day, unless they're living at home, sharing half a mortgage & utilities is usually less than paying for rent on your own. So they are benefiting from moving in. If they only pay half bills, you're losing space in your house (albeit while gaining the presence of someone you love) and only gaining tens of pounds by splitting bills and possibly even losing money if you were renting out part of the space to a lodger.

So i'd say for both parties to benefit equally, it would be good to calculate just how much each person is gaining or losing from moving in together and splitting it (proportionally if incomes are disparate) that way no one loses out.

But if they are charged rent, they can then claim a % share of the property, which is what we are trying to avoid.