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.

I moved in with someone who owned their home. I signed something to say I had no interest in the house.
Maybe my circumstance was unusual as I was unable to work and contribute anything anyway, and because I was living with them I was unable to claim any benefits.

You're twisting my words, taking things out of context by missing off the rest of my post. I didn't talk about not contributing, I actually specifically said the partner would be contributing - just not to the mortgage. I talked about not paying towards a mortgage when you're not on the deeds of that property which is totally reasonable. If someone wants equal finances then either rent together or buy together, not both pay towards a mortgage in one person's name, that's unfair and grabby.

I didn't include the whole of your post because it was quite long. I stand by what I said. I happily paid rent to my DH with no expectation of an interest in his property if things didn't work out. Why on earth would he have rented a different place with me when he already owned his own property? Rent for a commercial landlord would be more expensive than his house, he'd have to take on the additional expense of remortgaging because you need a buy to let mortgage, he'd have to risk having his house ruined by dodgy tenants or paying the mortgage while it was empty on top of the rent. Financially it makes no sense.

As for buying together, what incentive is there to incur those costs if you already have a perfectly good house? I moved on to the mortgage later but it was very much later when we were engaged and knew the relationship wasn't going to fizzle out in a couple of years.

It's not ok to pay the landlord's mortgage though. Private rental shouldn't exist.

What is the alternative to private rental? Social housing? There is a waiting list for that.

• My landlord has no access to my house and doesn't make a mess here, only I do
• I don't have to watch his kids or take them to school
• I have a decent notice period
• I can hold my landlord legally accountable for a lack of repairs
• I don't have to have sex with my landlord (people underestimate the importance of this)
• I am not expected to be "grateful" towards my landlord. We have our agreements and responsibilities on paper
• My landlord does not use ulities in my home that I would then have to pay for
• Everything in my home belongs to me and I can take it all with me when I go
• I don't have to do my landlord's laundry
• I don't have to buy extra food to cook for my landlord as well
• All the guests in my home are there for me and not my landlord
• I don't have to let my landlord know when/where I am going and what time I'll be back.

And most impotantly of all, It's not half the mortgage I pay. It's more like a fraction of it. That is if my landlord has a morgage at all and doesn't own the building outright.

I pay for the right to use it as I see fit without having to discuss things first. As long as I don't do any damage I am golden.

Most btl LL only have interest only mortgage so not paying down capital. So actually you are not buying LL their house as many think. Also LL have to give 2 month's notice soon to be unable to ask a person to leave unless they are selling house or they or family member going to live there. In a relationship if it goes wrong you will be prettyuch.put on your ear.

There's never any pretence that you and your landlord are entering into an equal partnership.

I wouldn't expect a fully equal, trusting relationship with someone you just met. But on the other hand, I would consider a financial imbalance, where one partner has no financial security, within an long term, committed relationship, to be financially abusive. And it's very grey as to where exactly that changeover happens.

Landlords shouldn't exist.

But there's no way in hell I'd contribute to a partners home and receive nothing in return.

You get accommodation.

(Unless you don't live there, in which case I agree, don't contribute.)

When I moved in to my boyfriend's (now husband) house I paid him the amount I had been paying my landlord. We had a verbal agreement that he would then use the extra money towards saving for home improvements. If it didn't work out with us he would give me some money out of this - although I accepted that if things went really wrong he could be a dick and I could have nothing.

After a couple of years we realised that we needed to spend a lot more money on the house so I made him marry me and have increased my monthly financial contribution to our combined pot.

So when I moved in with my ex-husband he lived in a beautiful house in a lovely area that needed an awful lot doing to it. My house was alright but in a shit area to be honest anyway the decision was made that my house would be sold upon us getting married and that the funds I received would go into the marital home paid for the way didn’t pay for a few holidays that kinda thing.

naturally when we got divorced he completely forgot about the check for 65 grand that I paid into his account.

as it was 14 years ago unfortunately none of the banking records went back that far that were available to me anyway we got divorced during lockdown.

and all of the equity ended up going to the solicitors anyway in costs.

if I had my time again that is absolutely no way I would do anything other than sell both properties put equal amounts into them by way of deposit legally protect that and if either of you have any surplus money, you do as you please with it.
my solicitor said the law has very little to do with justice my god did I find out to my detriment that’s true.

genuinely didn’t matter who was right and who was wrong.

There’s no way I’d let someone move into my house without paying towards living there

and there’s no way I’d give them a share of my house

married, kids, it’s different. A girlfriend, nope

I agree op. My ex partner and I lived together but we weren't married. I put a huge deposit down on the house we lived in with the equity from my previous sale and ported my mortgage over and he paid me towards the mortgage monthly. We paid equally into the house whilst we loved there. When we split up he couldn't afford the house and I could so I stayed in it (plus I had more equity etc and it was effectively my mortgage. he wanted all the money he had paid towards the mortgage back plus the money he spent on improving the house. I gave him the money he had spent on improvements and no more more. He couldn't get his head around the fact that he hadn't had the right to live for free for 4 years. In fact he was paying under the market rental rate for even half the house we lived in. The solicitor had to explain to him that that's what he'd agreed to and it was fair-but he couldn't see it at all.

It’s fine to put the money in You just habe a solicitor draw up and agreement saying if you split you get the money back

putting the money in, keeping one house etc are all perfectly good decisions. It fell apart because you kept no records and didn’t protect your money at the time

the issue was I was told that because I was married I had that security and actually turned out to be complete custard.

In my mind this issue is often (but not always) linked to other feminist issues hence why there is apparent hypocrisy on Mumsnet depending on the sex of the home owner.

Typically the man will be older than the woman in a relationship and therefore had more time to financially establish himself and buy a property. This is particularly true in the current housing market where prices have risen dramatically and being just that slight bit older can make all the difference in terms of getting on the housing ladder. When a relationship gets serious the woman often has no real choice but to live in the man's house if they want to live together. He is unlikely to want to move out to rented when he already owns a property, especially when mortgage payments are often cheaper than rent.
The woman therefore ends up paying rent to live in a house not of her choosing owned by the man whilst he uses that money to pay off his mortgage and build up equity in the property. The financial inequality in the situation bis obvious.

If the woman isn't happy with this situation then there are often barriers in place to stop them buying a house together. Often the property is big enough for both of them to live in already so there isn't any desperate need to move. The man may have already built up a decent chunk of equity in the house so it can be messy and difficult to add the woman to the mortgage and ringfence equity etc.

Ultimately though, the reason the woman is rarely added to the mortgage in these types of scenarios is that there is no incentive for the man to do this. He benefits disproportionately from the arrangement as he gets a massive chunk of his mortgage paid off reducing his day-to-day expenses, gets to build up equity in the property and doesn't risk losing the property in the event of a relationship breakdown. Meanwhile the woman paying the exact same amount of money in some cases benefits only from the first of these things. Add in childrearing and domestic work disproportionately falling to women and the gender pay gap and you can see why men conveniently retain the financial advantage in the relationship and the gap between men and women's financial circumstances grows.

I couldn't agree more with @Bumpitybumper

Hmmmm....but my point is not that it isn't fair for you to pay 'rent' in your circumstance. My point is that I would never agree to the set up you had unless I was in a lot of debt or financially vulnerable in some way. It might just be that I prioritise financial security more than you. I have always wanted to have a mortgage as quickly as possible and it would therefore not suit me to continue paying rent when I could have a mortgage with my partner.

Most people can't afford a mortgage on their own. It isn't unfair to expect to be put on a mortgage or purchase a new house in both names prior to living together in my opinion. If I wasn't ready to share a mortgage with a partner, then I wouldn't move in. You can sell a house a split the assets if you break up.

We aren't going to agree...

🤣 Yeah we're definitely not going to agree here

I've often wondered about this too OP. I don't see why I would automatically put a bf on the mortgage just because he's moving in. Most people keep finances separate until kids/marriage so I don't see why accommodation should be different just because I happen to own the property. This is probably how I would slice it:
-Just moved in: Separate finances. 50% each on bills & mortgage if earnings are similar, more proportional split if one earner is higher. I pay for all renovations, repairs and maintenance. Partner has 0 interest in the property.

-Marriage & kids: Joint-ish finances. Partner is on the mortgage with my deposit & equity ringfenced. Partner's contributions are also ringfenced and any future equity is shared equally regardless of salary. Other costs are shared proportionally.

As long as both parties benefit, I see no reason why you should expect to have an interest in a property you didn't purchase. You got the benefit of accommodation so it's not like they're taking advantage of you. How much you should pay is likely always going to be based on personal circumstances.

Totally agree, this seems totally obvious.

Hang on a minute, are you a man? This seems totally abusive and misogynistic profiteering.

@strivingtosucceed Wait a second, so if you were with a higher earner then they would end up paying more of your mortgage than you actually do? That's crazy. I mean, why would you ever put them on the mortgage when they are paying the majority of it off for you?

If you break up with the boyfriend after 3 years of living together in this way, then your he has missed out on paying into a mortgage for 3 years and has nothing to show for it. Would you honestly sell up your home and live as the renter in this set up?

It's too romantic to risk paying into a partner's mortgage with the hope you might some day be put on it at the home owner's will. Some people can live for decades in this type of set up as they never marry or have children.

I would advise anyone I care about to avoid being a tenant to their partner at all costs. They might end up paying higher rent than they would with their partner for a year or two but they would then begin life living together as equals with a shared mortgage whenever they both felt ready. It isn't as if renting your own flat is going to prevent you regualarly staying over at your partner's home afterall. By doing it this way as the tenant, you prevent the home owner partner from getting too comfortable with you paying off their mortgage in my opinion.

You wrre VERY right!

This makes total sense!