Moving in to DP's mortgaged house... who should pay?

[hollsmoi]

I'm shortly due to leave my rental property to move in with DP who already owns a property. The plan is to live together there for a while and if all goes well, we will rent out his place and purchase somewhere together which is more suitable. We are in central London so DP currently rents out one of his bedrooms to a lodger (he makes a lot of profit from this), who will be moving out when I move in.

DP has implied that he expects us to split all outgoings for the house 50/50. Having never moved in to a partner's home, I'm not sure this is right. Without question I will be contributing 50/50 to all of the household bills, council tax, food shop etc. but part of me feels uncomfortable about essentially paying half of his mortgage as 'rent'. AIBU?

Also, when I move in we are needing to covert the spare bedroom to an office space and storage area for me e.g. desks, built in wardrobes and drawers for my things. DP has mentioned when "we" buy these things which again implies 50/50. WIBU to expecting DP to fund this since it's his property and in the event that things didn't work out, he would benefit from them i.e. they'd remain in his property. Thoughts welcome as I'm new to this!

You need to buy whatever furniture you need, free standing not fitted. Then pay whatever the lodger did plus your contribution to food. Your partner will remain responsible for the repair and maintenance of the house.

I would consider paying half the interest payment on the mortgage plus half utilities.

That way you aren't paying down the mortgage.

It also sounds as though his spare room will also be yours, so you will actually be having use of more of the space than him?

I don't think living in someone's house is being subsidised by them.

It's their house, they chose to buy based on their earnings. They aren't paying more money than the house they chose to buy or paying more money because a partner moves in (this case is slightly different). Like anything else it's the houseowners possession which they are paying for. Its not OPs possession, it's her DPs.

Everyone gets so het up on living rent free, but as long as the partner pays their fair share of bills, does their fair share of housework etc I don't really understand why someone you love living rent free is such a horrific thought. As I said my mortgage doesn't increase because I move a partner in and I'm getting a house out of it. (The lodger complicates the situation)

It should never be a long term thing, that would be freeloading. If you've lived together longer than say 6 months or a year you should be looking to buy together, ideally with the money saved from not renting. But if at the end of the relationship one partner walks away with a house and the other savings equivalent of a house it sounds reasonable

@leakymcleakleak

Is there a compromise whereby you don't pay towards the capital repayments?

So, work out what his interest repayments on the mortgage are every month. Pay half that, and half the other bills. The rest of the amount you 'save' and put into an account that is in your name but will count towards a joint deposit in future assuming you stay together. Yes, he'll 'lose out' a bit from not having the lodger but you'll both gain from having the house to yourselves/being able to wander around in a towel/etc etc. Also, if you decide to do some intensive saving after a year or so you could always get a lodger back again.

The thing I think people miss is that living together for the first time is generally a trial. Yes you're committed, but sometimes things don't work out. If you're married, the court tries to work out what's fair, but if your'e not I think you need to treat every stage with consideration given to 'what would be fair if we split up next month? Next year? In 5 years?'

For lots of people contributing to someone else's mortgage means they aren't saving for a deposit for their own which they would do if still single/if with someone who didn't already own a house. With my now DH, when we first lived together I earned more than him, we rented, and the deal was we split all the bills including rent but I bought all the furniture outright and tried to save a chunk of the difference in our income so if we split, that would be mine, if we didn't it would officially become 'ours'. We now have totally joint finances but it was a staggered process: sometimes advise is given here like it doesn't make a difference whether you've been together a decade or are just moving from dating to trying out living together.

Your last paragraph doesn’t make sense. It’s the opposite. People who rent (single or otherwise) are the ones who can’t save for a deposit because high rents eat up all their money. People who stay with a partners save money even when paying towards the mortgage. Because it’s cheaper than rent.

So moving in with a partner also benefits the non-owning one!

@CarrotTops

I don't think living in someone's house is being subsidised by them.

It's their house, they chose to buy based on their earnings. They aren't paying more money than the house they chose to buy or paying more money because a partner moves in (this case is slightly different). Like anything else it's the houseowners possession which they are paying for. Its not OPs possession, it's her DPs.

Everyone gets so het up on living rent free, but as long as the partner pays their fair share of bills, does their fair share of housework etc I don't really understand why someone you love living rent free is such a horrific thought. As I said my mortgage doesn't increase because I move a partner in and I'm getting a house out of it. (The lodger complicates the situation)

It should never be a long term thing, that would be freeloading. If you've lived together longer than say 6 months or a year you should be looking to buy together, ideally with the money saved from not renting. But if at the end of the relationship one partner walks away with a house and the other savings equivalent of a house it sounds reasonable

The point isn’t how many savings people have or whether the amount changes. The point is paying an ‘equal share of all costs’ include the costs of living. Which is either rent or mortgage. If someone was renting a flat and their partner moved it - would you expect a share of the rent although it’s the same? If yes then you should expect a payment for living there.

Taking it further you could argue that an extra person adds a minimal amount onto the bill so anyone moving in should only cover this and not half the bills etc etc.

In the end - if you move in together you split everything. For the mortgage it’s fair to not split in half and make a token payment enabling non-owning partner to save, but to expect to pay nothing (either in cash or kind) means that one partner bears the full burden of an expense. That’s not sharing.

If the mortgage is 1000 and the interest is 200 (these are total bs figures btw)

Op pays 100 a month which is half the interest. She can then save 900 a month

Ops DP pays 900 a month, 800 of which is going towards his assets 100 towards the interest. He has a spare 100 a month he can save

After 10 months OP will have saved 9000

After 10 months DP will have 8000 additional assets and 1000 savings- 9000

If OP pays half the mortgage 500. Then at the end of the relationship OP has saved 5000, whilst the DP has increased his assets by 8000 plus the 5000 that he has then saved on mortgage payments so a total of 13000. He walks away much better off

Anything that isn't interest on the mortgage is essentially going into the DPs savings because it is going towards his assets i.e. the house. That's why its not fair. Even if DPs worse off paying his mortgage it's still building his assets, his money si still going back to him in the future.

A reduced rate or amount to cover about 50% of the interest (which obviously is unlikely to be as low as 200) is reasonable. Half the mortgage is not

But you don't split everything when you move in together

It depends on so many things. Splitting everything straight down the middle a lot of the time just isn't fair. If one is say a cleaner and the other an investment banker going 50/50 is never going to be fair

@TractorAndHeadphones Its not always cheaper, but actually I think the issue is more the perception. 'Opportunity cost' rather than real cost. So, you live with your partner for 7 years: yes its 'his' flat but you pay half the bills, you know you're both going to sell and use it for a deposit on a house when you're ready to have kids, you've been involved in the redecoration, you both see it as 'our home'.

If you were both living in a rented flat, still planning those kids, even if rent was higher you would personally be ensuring keeping an eye on savings. Your partner wouldn't say 'oh we can totally afford to go on that holiday abroad, look how much the equity has increased in the last year.' If you were living in a rented flat on your own, and 7 years had passed, you'd be thinking about your own security and not relying on a flat that you don't actually have any legal right to.

I know a LOT of people who made financial decisions in long term relationships based on an assumption they'd always be together that screwed them when they split, ranging from supporting a partner through retraining by picking up bills (it will be alright because when he goes into the higher paying job he'll make up for it) to trusting they lived in a 'shared' house until suddenly they split, weren't married and didn't have names on the deeds. I don't think the OP should be so much better off from moving in, but I do think its right they think about it and think about whats fair now vs in a couple of years.

@CarrotTops

If the mortgage is 1000 and the interest is 200 (these are total bs figures btw)

Op pays 100 a month which is half the interest. She can then save 900 a month

Ops DP pays 900 a month, 800 of which is going towards his assets 100 towards the interest. He has a spare 100 a month he can save

After 10 months OP will have saved 9000

After 10 months DP will have 8000 additional assets and 1000 savings- 9000

If OP pays half the mortgage 500. Then at the end of the relationship OP has saved 5000, whilst the DP has increased his assets by 8000 plus the 5000 that he has then saved on mortgage payments so a total of 13000. He walks away much better off

Anything that isn't interest on the mortgage is essentially going into the DPs savings because it is going towards his assets i.e. the house. That's why its not fair. Even if DPs worse off paying his mortgage it's still building his assets, his money si still going back to him in the future.

A reduced rate or amount to cover about 50% of the interest (which obviously is unlikely to be as low as 200) is reasonable. Half the mortgage is not

This makes sense. I’ve reread the OP and realised that she’s asked about 50/50. My bad. 50/50 is too much but she should pay some money which is what I have been saying. And the bulk of furniture, which she can take with her when leaving .

[quote leakymcleakleak]@TractorAndHeadphones Its not always cheaper, but actually I think the issue is more the perception. 'Opportunity cost' rather than real cost. So, you live with your partner for 7 years: yes its 'his' flat but you pay half the bills, you know you're both going to sell and use it for a deposit on a house when you're ready to have kids, you've been involved in the redecoration, you both see it as 'our home'.

If you were both living in a rented flat, still planning those kids, even if rent was higher you would personally be ensuring keeping an eye on savings. Your partner wouldn't say 'oh we can totally afford to go on that holiday abroad, look how much the equity has increased in the last year.' If you were living in a rented flat on your own, and 7 years had passed, you'd be thinking about your own security and not relying on a flat that you don't actually have any legal right to.

I know a LOT of people who made financial decisions in long term relationships based on an assumption they'd always be together that screwed them when they split, ranging from supporting a partner through retraining by picking up bills (it will be alright because when he goes into the higher paying job he'll make up for it) to trusting they lived in a 'shared' house until suddenly they split, weren't married and didn't have names on the deeds. I don't think the OP should be so much better off from moving in, but I do think its right they think about it and think about whats fair now vs in a couple of years.[/quote]
That’s not a financial issue though - it’s a lack of planning. They didn’t agree a budget, didn’t keep their focus on what they wanted. I know a lot of people who would never have been able to get on the ladder as quickly if they’d been living alone. So who’s anecdotal evidence is better - yours or mine?

Of course you should pay half, you would be paying rent so you should pay half of the mortgage bills etc. Unless he earns substantially more than you, then you agree a percentage of what you will pay. If you are doubting the future of the relationship then don’t move in. If you expect him to buy somewhere with you in the future then you need to start sharing costs now. Ive been married twice and both times I moved in to their mortgaged place, paid rent and bills and then eventually got a mortgage together in London. When DH1 and I split, there was no issue over money as we had both contributed to the mortgage bills etc and we split it all 50/50 after 7 years. Don’t expect a man to take care of you. Be independent, earn your own money and pay your own way. My now DH’s first wife lived in his flat rent free for 2 years while she earned more than him and spent her money on business class flights, clothes etc etc. I have no respect for women like that and she was supposedly a feminist. It’s about self respect.

@CarrotTops

I don't think living in someone's house is being subsidised by them.

It's their house, they chose to buy based on their earnings. They aren't paying more money than the house they chose to buy or paying more money because a partner moves in (this case is slightly different). Like anything else it's the houseowners possession which they are paying for. Its not OPs possession, it's her DPs.

Everyone gets so het up on living rent free, but as long as the partner pays their fair share of bills, does their fair share of housework etc I don't really understand why someone you love living rent free is such a horrific thought. As I said my mortgage doesn't increase because I move a partner in and I'm getting a house out of it. (The lodger complicates the situation)

It should never be a long term thing, that would be freeloading. If you've lived together longer than say 6 months or a year you should be looking to buy together, ideally with the money saved from not renting. But if at the end of the relationship one partner walks away with a house and the other savings equivalent of a house it sounds reasonable

Na I just can't get on board with one person paying so much more than the other when both are living in the same property. It's just not fair.

My partner lived with me rent free for over a year because he was paying off debt and couldn't afford to contribute. I was not horrified by it, definitely not. But as soon as he finished his debt, he took over paying all the bills as he wasn't comfortable with me paying for everything and him nothing (except shopping). He would never have felt it alright for me to continue paying loads while he just paid half the bills and tucked the rest away in savings for himself.

He still pays less than half of what I pay for the mortgage, but I am OK with this as to me, that is what compensates for the fact that I own the flat and he doesn't.

I reckon you should just rent somewhere else together (if you both don’t want to buy just yet) and he can just rent his house out. This would make me uncomfortable with it being ‘his’ house, he could kick you out at a seconds notice and you wouldn’t have a say, so no security and it will never feel like your home OP.

@beingsunny

I would consider paying half the interest payment on the mortgage plus half utilities.

That way you aren't paying down the mortgage.

This.

Perfect solution imo.

@CarrotTops

If the mortgage is 1000 and the interest is 200 (these are total bs figures btw)

Op pays 100 a month which is half the interest. She can then save 900 a month

Ops DP pays 900 a month, 800 of which is going towards his assets 100 towards the interest. He has a spare 100 a month he can save

After 10 months OP will have saved 9000

After 10 months DP will have 8000 additional assets and 1000 savings- 9000

If OP pays half the mortgage 500. Then at the end of the relationship OP has saved 5000, whilst the DP has increased his assets by 8000 plus the 5000 that he has then saved on mortgage payments so a total of 13000. He walks away much better off

Anything that isn't interest on the mortgage is essentially going into the DPs savings because it is going towards his assets i.e. the house. That's why its not fair. Even if DPs worse off paying his mortgage it's still building his assets, his money si still going back to him in the future.

A reduced rate or amount to cover about 50% of the interest (which obviously is unlikely to be as low as 200) is reasonable. Half the mortgage is not

That's my logic too. She should ring fence her savings so if they do split she has money for a deposit or if they buy together she can contribute at that point. But she needs to be building her savings via a Standing order into a savings account.

@beingsunny

I would consider paying half the interest payment on the mortgage plus half utilities.

That way you aren't paying down the mortgage.

That sounds the most sensible fairest option

You should pay the market rent, whatever he was getting from the lodger. You're not paying his mortgage you're just paying what's fair.

You shouldn't jointly buy the furniture, you should just buy it yourself. That way if it all goes tits up it'll be your property and you can take it with you.

Presumably if and when you both buy, he will ring fence his contribution (the equity from the current house) - so whatever you pay shouldnt bolster that.

@BernadetteRostankowskiWolowitz

Presumably if and when you both buy, he will ring fence his contribution (the equity from the current house) - so whatever you pay shouldnt bolster that.

That's another good reason why not to be contributing to the capital repayment part of the mortgage.

@BernadetteRostankowskiWolowitz

Presumably if and when you both buy, he will ring fence his contribution (the equity from the current house) - so whatever you pay shouldnt bolster that.

This.

You'd be paying rent or a mortgage of your own if you didn't live with him in his property, so why would you expect not to contribute (towards the mortgage) while living with him?

And if you want the items for the spare room to become your space, I think he is been more than reasonable offering to pay half! They are items he won't directly use or benefit from, they are for your usage, and he wouldn't be buying them if you weren't moving in!

I assume he'll be the one paying the extra 3% stamp duty on the house you buy together, as it'll be his second property?

I think this whole situation sounds pretty bleak though, tbh. Moving in to his place on a trial basis. Wondering if you'll have to chip in for your own desk. Where's the joy, love and excitement?!

What you want to do means you moving in will save you alot of money (£300 even if paying half the mortgage!) and cost him alot of money (loss of profitable lodger, modifying his home to accommodate you).
You're much better off paying 50% of his mortgage than 105%ish of a landlords. He's still going to be worse off most likely. Why are you arguing against a good deal for you?

@CarrotTops

If the mortgage is 1000 and the interest is 200 (these are total bs figures btw)

Op pays 100 a month which is half the interest. She can then save 900 a month

Ops DP pays 900 a month, 800 of which is going towards his assets 100 towards the interest. He has a spare 100 a month he can save

After 10 months OP will have saved 9000

After 10 months DP will have 8000 additional assets and 1000 savings- 9000

If OP pays half the mortgage 500. Then at the end of the relationship OP has saved 5000, whilst the DP has increased his assets by 8000 plus the 5000 that he has then saved on mortgage payments so a total of 13000. He walks away much better off

Anything that isn't interest on the mortgage is essentially going into the DPs savings because it is going towards his assets i.e. the house. That's why its not fair. Even if DPs worse off paying his mortgage it's still building his assets, his money si still going back to him in the future.

A reduced rate or amount to cover about 50% of the interest (which obviously is unlikely to be as low as 200) is reasonable. Half the mortgage is not

OP is taking a place where he had a lodger. OP would be a female cocklodger to expect to live for free in his house (not that I think she has stated she expects to)

but part of me feels uncomfortable about essentially paying half of his mortgage as 'rent'. AIBU?

Why shouldnt she contribute to the living costs.

Say they split after 5 years, and the property is now worth less than it was before (say was worth 100, now is worth 80 just example numbers), if she was not paying 'rent' should she then give DP half the value that has been lost (100-80 = 20 / 2 = 10)?

OP should pay something, perhaps half what her rent was to live alone - she can still save the other half, so if they do split she will have some savings to fall back on.

She should not live there just paying bills/for free