Why is it ok to 'pay the landlords mortgage' but not your partners?

[Luidaeg]

So many threads I have seen where one person owns a house and the partner is moving in (sometimes planning) and they are told, you shouldn't pay towards their mortgage unless you are married and it is shared.

Why?

Why should someone live rent free just because they have chosen a partner who is in the position of owning a house?

Obviously you don't want to 'make a profit' on them, but equally you can't expect a free ride.

@chiffchaffchiff And yet, @JenniferPlantain has told a story that shows the negative side to the gamble of moving into a partner's home. I understand that sometimes it works out, but it's a heart over head decision. I would never risk it.

If I had a partner that owned a home with lots of money paid into their mortgage, then I would be happy for that money to be contractually ringfenced in case we broke up. I just wouldn't want to risk being like poor B in @JenniferPlantain's story.

So true

Personally it's because with a landlord you have rights. You have to be given notice to leave etc. With a partner you could pay them one day and the next they throw you out. You have no legal rights and because you live with them in their home they can also hold it over you if you disagree with them. I know many people who when arguing their partner is not pulling their weight with household chores they get told if you don't like it leave. That's no way to live.

@Luidaeg i agree with you 100%. Most times what they pay towards the mortgage is much less than renting as well...why should you live in someones gouse for free?

👏👏THIS exactly what its like on here!

You shouldnt end up with "zero money". You should have been saving what you would have been paying for rent if you were living by yourself?. Half of a mortgage would be much cheaper than rent!

The common issues tend to be someone losing out on universal credit due to the partner now sharing, or being asked to pay towards renovations in a house they don't own. Contributions to a mortgage can create rights to a property and both parties need a contract to protect them, but that doesn't mean that payment of rent is always wrong. Ringfencing initial deposits is sensible, but I don't really understand these "partnerships" where income and expenses aren't shared, it doesn't seem very much like "partners" to me and therefore more likely to break up accordingly.

@JenniferPlantain you really can't work out what is right in that situation? I think it's fair to say that B should try to get back their contribution to the improvements, but imagining that 'they' (let's face it, she) should get half the equity for a house she doesn't own and only lived in for four years is ridiculously entitled.

I totally agree with you and can’t grasp why some folks think if you move in you should live rent free. Wtf is that about.

@JenniferPlantain That's a really tricky situation. I think I'd be telling them to speak to Solicetors too as I wouldn't know what was right. I suspect it's a maths question. Add up the total costs of everything and who paid what and work out what added value to the flat.

One of my kids partners stays at their house a lot and doesn't pay anything but they are paying for a flat elsewhere. My kids house is much bigger and nicer and not shared so is obviously a nicer place to stay. So far they don't pay anything. My kid likes that house to be theirs and for their partner to have no say in anything.

I can see the argument. You’re not sleeping with the landlord, nor are you undertaking two or more people’s household chores when you rent alone. It’s all the extras that come along with a relationship alongside paying their mortgage. So when you break up they are financially better off and the other party has lost money, self respect and potentially a broken heart into the bargain.

Whilst I do agree with what some PP have said above about legal protection etc, I agree with the OP -yes you may not have a share in the equity etc, but not paying anything at all? Where in the world would you ever be able to live anywhere for free?

When DH and I first started dating, he owned a one-bed flat, and I rented a one-bed flat. (His mortgage was £480 a month + £170 service charge a month = £650). I was renting for £750 a month. Between us, we were spending £1400 for our places (we both had bills on top of that), but we were only using one of them - we were spending 7 nights a week together (at mine, as I had pets).

Eventually, my landlord gave me notice, and I was stressed trying to find somewhere else to live, with pets. He sat me down, and suggested I move in with him (we were spending all our time together anyway). We did have a chat about finances - everything was brought up, including the equity etc. He assured me he would never just throw me out, if we broke up, without somewhere else to go, but to be honest, I guess I never had that security.

I ended up paying half of everything - £325 for half the mortgage, and service charge (a lot less than my £750 rent), and half the bills. I can't remember what the bills cost now, but even with them, I was still paying less than what I had been paying in rent alone. I guess you could say that my security was the extra money that I was able to save, and so had savings if I needed to find somewhere quickly to move out.

We both agreed to save the difference we were both saving (we did), but keep the savings separate. The idea was eventually we could use the savings, and sell his flat for a deposit for somewhere together.

Two years after I first moved in with him, we both had savings, I had gained a little inheritance (very unexpectedly), and he had some money left over from the flat sale - we combined all the above and bought a house together (with a mortgage). However, I did say that I would only buy a property with him, if we would eventually get married. 6 months after we moved into our home, we got engaged, and 2 years after that, we married. Now we share all finances etc.

The truth of the matter is, I benefitted massively from moving in with him - I was able to save a lot, but the reality is that he had more equity on his flat, than I had in savings, and the intention was to use that for a house deposit together (at the time, I never expected an inheritance).

Really interesting reading replies to my friends' situation.

For ref A is a woman and B is a man - though I get why you though it was the other way round @Hont1986 because it often seems to be that way. I think if they hadn't been planning for a future together for years and had no DC I'd agree with what you've said. I think I largely still do, but I can also empathise somewhat with B's position. Ultimately I suppose I believe they took gamble that didn't pay off.

@Luidaeg that's exactly what A is now saying - you were saving hundreds a month, which he ultimately used for hobbies and travel, rather than a deposit for an investment property or ISA or something (which A actively encouraged him to do, she claims).

I guess once you know a relationship is going to be long term, it is time to talk Trust Deeds. Unromantic but perhaps worth an awkward conversation for everyone to feel more secure and have absolute clarity.

People get too blinkered on the finance side of it . Your pay to live somewhere a roof over your head how the person finances it is really nothing to do with you .
In basic terms you are paying for a service .

I honestly don’t know. Even if you are not paying towards the mortgage you will be expected to be contributing in other ways in possibly the same amount so it doesn’t make any difference as long as the contribution was less than the total you would spend in rent and other living costs elsewhere.

Now, if you start thinking about children or s/he asks you to sell your own house, you either get in the mortgage or move out. There is soooo much else to consider when there are children involved.

Because a landlord is running a business and selling a service. A partner isn’t, presumably. If they’re happy to accept no rent, that’s up to them.

What do you suggest should happen when one partner already owns a house outright?

I think both should benefit. Most of the time (both working, both with some disposable income etc) this means that yes, you should pay rent. Look how critical Mumsnet is of cocklodgers - quite rightly. The amount of that rent may vary and may be purely nominal (one person on low wages, one on high for example). There may even need to be a transfer of funds the other way (someone loses Universal Credit or other benefits). But yes, the majority of the time, if you move in you pay some rent.

@JenniferPlantain - That's a tough one. I get that B hasn't been saving wisely (as A recommended), but A has still benefitted from B living there; paying 50% of mortgage, contributions towards renovations, and 100% of childcare costs. That's a lot of saved money for A.

However, they do have a child involved. If they sell, and divide as B suggests, does A have enough for a home (something of a similar standard, even if slightly smaller) for their child (assuming she will be the resident parent here, which I appreciate may be wrong). Will B be able to buy/rent somewhere, with space for the child to visit and stay over? B will also need to pay maintenance for the child. Yep, this is complicated.

I'm also worried about a friend, who is a similar situation. Her and her DP have children from previous relationships; she is pregnant with their first child together (a child which he never wanted, and he was open about that at start of pregnancy). She owns her own home (outright, no mortgage) - he lives with her, and pays rent etc. He has just put in an offer for a bigger property for them all to live in - it will be solely in his name, and he is putting forward all deposit etc. I asked friend if she was keeping her property (I honestly thought, she was selling it, and they were going 50:50 together on new home, in both names) - she said, "Of course, I'm keeping it - it will still be mine, and will be needed to pay the mortgage". The gist of the situation is - friend will be keeping her property, and renting it out - she will then use this money to pay her DP rent to live in his home (fair enough, he has paid her rent for years).

My worry is - things will get sticky. They want to keep their properties separate, as they both have children (makes sense), but his property is bigger, and worth more. If they were to split, I can see his argument being, "You have a property - give your tenants notice, and move back", but her argument will be, "You have larger assets, and we have a child together. I have also paid X into this home."

We do have the kind of relationship, where I can be blunt and speak to her about things, but I could see she was getting defensive when I started to mention the above, and so I backed down (it's her life, not mine). He won't marry her, as he has larger assets (he has already said that).

It's already been mentioned about the lack of legal protection moving in with a partner. They could ask you to vacate the premise with zero notice and that's that.

But I think there's another key difference - when you move into a rented property you can decide where the furniture goes, you have access to all the rooms - it's a house you rent but it's your home to make decisions with.

If you move into a partner's house you are just co-existing in their space. You can't choose which bedroom you'd like as your own - the partner has already decided. You can't just decide one day you want a new sofa/ table/ mattress. You don't really get any of the real 'home' experience.

That said I don't agree that a contribution to rent shouldn't be paid, I just don't agree with half. The owner benefits completely, still retains control and decision making abilities and can terminate the situation immediately whereas the life-in partner is placing their entire security in the hands of the owner with no protection.

Every couples situation will be different due to income and prior living arrangements so I have one simple rule that I think should be the number one priority:

Both partners should be better off each month by the arrangement than they were before. (Ideally by similar amounts/percentages)

Summed up prefectly!

Yes but her friend was paying for renovations on a house she didn't own and had no legal interest in. Before DH and I got married and I went on the mortgage he paid for everything for the house. When the boiler broke, when the roof needed fixing, when the bathroom was replaced, when we decorated rooms etc. I only paid rent for living there. According to Mumsnet I shouldn't have been paying because it was his mortgage and he would be paying it anyway.

This.

I agree.