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.

'Can't expect a free ride'. Quite. Most - all? - landlords wont be getting the 'perks' that go with a partnership. It's a completely different dynamic between participants which shouldn't require explanation and is too lengthy to go into here.

I own my flat , boyfriend moved in. I didn't charge him any rent as I didn't want him to have any claim and also I didn't have mortgage payments anyway so why should I make money out of him?
He saved the rent he used to pay so if I had chucked him out he would have had £10k saved up each year anyway.

Why do people compare not having to have sex with your landlord and having sex with your partner. Do you not enjoy sex with him, is sex not for both parties?. Is sex payment for living with him?

Its about power dynamics in a relationship and how the relationship functions.

Most healthy relationships start on a more equal basis where both parties have equal say and input into where they are going to live. One partner already owning a house often narrows the other partner's choices dramatically. The homeowner will not want to rent with their partner if they already own somewhere and will be reluctant to add them to the mortgage if they don't absolutely have to. Buying a house together becomes complicated as the homeowner already owns a property and will have built up equity. They are already on the housing ladder so won't be desperate to buy in the same way that someone who doesn't own a property might be, especially if you are getting to the age where mortgage term lengths etc can become a problem.

If the non-homeowner wants the relationship to progress by moving in together then they effectively have to move in with their partner and this will disproportionately benefit the homeowning partner if the other partner ends up contributing equally to the mortgage but doesn't benefit from the house price increases, capital growth and housing security that the homeowning partner does.

But half my mortgage would be fair bit less than what a lodger would pay for a room.

But someone moving in a suddenly saving a grand or so a month and just contributing to bills isn't very loving either. For most the biggest bill is the mortgage. Mortgages aren't just giving your money to the mortgage lender for them to put it aside for you. Most if not all will pay massive amounts of interest over the years. Why shouldn't an adult contribute?

Most of the threads here involve men moving in with women who have kids. I would suggest that they will benefit massively from the arrangement. It also isn't often practical or particularly helpful for kids to be uprooted in order for both partners to take out a mortgage together on a new home.

Everyone should be paying for their own living expenses,whether that's for a mortgaged house or rented. It's life. You can say that the mortgaged person is making money from the other partner. But it works the other way round too. Both will likely be saving money from the arrangement.

The person with the mortgage has the security but also all of the liability for meeting the payments etc

The sensible thing to do in this situation is to split "house costs" and "living costs". "House Costs" is mortgage, maintenance, home improvements and decorating. "Living Costs" would be council tax, food, electricity, gas, water, TV, etc.

Home owner pays all of the housing costs. The living costs then get split 50/50.

That goes both ways though doesn’t it? The house owner doesn’t get a free ride either and should therefore be providing the legal protection of a tenancy agreement. Right OP?

The house owner should definitely provide them with the equivalent legal protection of a renter in their position, i.e. a lodger, because they are living with the landlord.

You don't actually have many rights as a lodger though. Just a short notice period.

Which most people would do if a relationship broke down anyway.

And why not?

In that case, i'd probably pay the same mortgage costs and less bills.

People seem to cling to the idea that their partner should never benefit from your payments and would rather enrich their landlords than their partner they claim to love. Saying that they won't benefit from capital appreciation or whatever but happily living in a property they didn't save money for, don't pay interest on and don't carry the risk of owning. Neither would they be happy to accept the capital depreciation if the property reduces in value. Seems very selfish and self serving.

I feel that as long as both parties equally benefit from the move, it's fair to both parties.