To not want to be DP’s tenant?

[barhumbug]

DP and I have been together almost 4yrs. I moved in with him as he owns his own home and at the time we met I was in shared accommodation so it made a lot more sense. He has always wanted me to feel like it’s ‘my’ home rather than me living in his house but I can’t help but still feeling like I am. He’s never made me feel that way but it’s always in the back of my mind that I am and I hoped that one day this would change.

Since I moved in he has refused to allow me to contribute a penny to anything related to the house. I give a contribution to bills but that’s it. Mortgage, white goods that need replacing etc have all been paid by him 100%. I have offered to contribute to white goods but he has refused. I understand completely his reluctance to allow me to contribute to the mortgage as he doesn’t want me having any kind of claim to any part of his house if we were to split. Fair enough, I absolutely understand, he worked really hard to buy his home and I wouldn’t want to take away any part of that.

Due to an inheritance he has now paid off the mortgage in full so is mortgage free. Fantastic! He is now thinking about potentially upgrading to a bigger property with parking as we live in a very desirable area and parking is a nightmare. Plus maybe having an extra bedroom for guests to visit etc.

However, property is expensive here and the size/type he is looking at would be right at the top of his budget, meaning his living costs would increase a lot with a new mortgage. Basically, he could just about afford it on his own but it would be a stretch. His plan, as it currently stands is for me to pay ‘rent’ as a contribution to housing costs but I wouldn’t be on the mortgage or have a claim to any part of the house so he would keep everything in the event of a split.

Due to a combination of unfortunate circumstances when I met DP I was in the process of digging myself out of debt and had no savings. Since then I’m very proud of myself in that I’ve managed to completely clear my debts, rebuild my credit rating to excellent and have a few grand in savings. As such I have very little chance of getting a property on my own but we could easily afford a decent place together with our joint earnings.

Aibu in thinking I’m not ok with this? It doesn’t make sense (to me) for him to stretch himself super thin just to be able to keep 100% of the risk and responsibility of a new house while I pay him ‘rent’ and effectively build nothing for myself? I will obviously continue to save as much as I can anyway but I still would have no chance of buying my own place if we split in the future. He doesn’t have any immediate plans to buy, he’s thinking ahead for 5yrs time to enable him to
build a bigger deposit for a new place. He could change his mind in that time as by then we would have been together almost 9yrs but I’m not
sure I want take that risk. I see us very much as being in a long term, potentially life long partnership and I really want us to have something that is ‘ours’ and currently there is nothing. All our finances are separate, we won’t be getting married as he is staunchly against it. I’ve come to terms with that and I’m ok with it as I understand his reasoning but for some reason this feels like a hill I’m willing to die on. I’m sure he does love me and very much also sees us as a life long partnership but I know he also got badly burned by a previous long term partner and narrowly avoided losing his home when they split so I’m sure that’s a big factor here.

I just really don’t want to be his ‘tenant’. I want to be an equal partner and if this goes ahead I will still feel like I’m ’living in his house’ no matter how much he wants me to see it as ‘ours’. I can’t quite explain but it feels like the power dynamic would be totally off. I’m not even sure how the logistics would work, would I have a tenancy agreement etc?

I’m not sure if I’m making a bigger deal of it than it is? Tbh I’m only in the position I’m in now because of his encouragement and support and this feels a bit like I’m throwing my toys out the pram if I don’t get my way. I don’t know if it’s worth throwing away what is, in every other sense a fantastic relationship.

*We don’t have kids and will be staying child free so no need to worry about any of that!

no I haven’t been living ‘rent free’ the past 4yrs, I have been paying a contribution to the bills/running costs/paying for food etc which is roughly equivalent to a cheap rental price for the area. So essentially anything I’m ‘using’ day to day I pay towards but not the mortgage (at his insistence).

If you’re paying a contribution to food and bills then you’re living rent free. Even with the cheapest rental your running costs would then be more on your own.

It’s been saving him significantly less than it’s been saving the OP though. Let’s not pretend otherwise.

If he can afford a new place without your rent then he could afford to increase his mortgage and buy you out if you split up.

The fair thing is that you own in proportion to how much deposit you put in and in the event that you split the house is valued and he buys you out based on that valuation. You get a share of the profit based on what you have contributed. So say the house is £600k and you pay half a £100k mortgage - if the house increases in value to £700k he gets 5/6 of the increase in value + half the remaining increase. What you do if the valuation falls is down to both of you - calculate what you need to pay in the same way, perhaps. You also need an agreement that in the event of his death his estate will pay you something and allow you say 6 months to leave.

OP, who will he be leaving his assets to when he dies? Has he offered you any safety net in this regard?

You need to ask him to buy with you. He needs to protect the money he puts in. I presume this is possible legally via an agreement you draw up.
If he won't do this then I would look at saving up and buying your own place.

So you will have spent 9 years with him when he transfers your lodger status to a new address?
Think long and hard about what your long term plan is and keep saving.

I understand where he is coming from as nobody wants to have to sell their home if a relationship breaks down. And I'd advise my children this way as well.
But its not comfortable being on the other end of that

I agree completely, @Letstheriveranswer, but OP doesn't have to remain in this relationship with a man who's (perhaps understandably) not showing the commitment she wants

That's her choice to make, and though he's being perfectly open about what he's prepared to offer - basically nothing apart from the chance to live in a nicer house than she could otherwise afford and probably a few treats - presumably she thinks it's worth it

It wouldn't do for me, but each to their own as ever, and at least it can't be said he's future faking since OP knows exactly what the deal is

He has still benefited from OP's contribution towards living costs in that time. It has been mutually beneficial to both OP and her DP.

OP is right to be concerned about long-term financial security though.

While she's in her 40s and not planning on children, she needs to make sure that if anything unanticipated in that department occurs, that she isn't unduely paying the price.

What are the plans on wills and long term investments such as pensions?

My concern with relationships like this is that it's very easy for OP to be fully emotionally committed, invest years of her life into him and supporting his assets then very abruptly find that the relationship ends, her life has to restart yet again, and he carries on. It's not uncommon for men like this to suddenly find a marriage-worthy partner.

If a relationship is genuinely committed with the intention of lasting decades then compromises are made and mutual interests are protected. This one feels like he's enjoying the good times but keeping an eye on the emergency exit.

@barhumbug This sounds perfectly fair to me.
If he's not up for this then there's something fundamental that needs addressing.

Something you've not mentioned, @barhumbug - what are your relative working situations?
I know you said an inheritance helped him to buy, but is he also on a much higher wage than you?

I own the home me and DH live in. I wouldn't put him on the deeds, even though we've been together 17 years. This is due to being very burnt in a previous divorce. I have no thoughts of leaving him, we are happily married. I thought my first marriage was happy, but my H had a secret life and other women. It makes you very cautious. At the end of the day, I came to the table with a house and he didn't. Same as you. It's not his fault you never got on the property ladder, you can't expect him to put his house on the line, when you could leave at any moment and want to take half his house with you.

@barhumbug would you even be allowed to rent out a SO property though?

Hope you had something drawn up that ringfences the house as yours, because as you’ve married him, it doesn’t matter whose name is on the deeds, in the event of a divorce he’d have a claim on the house.

Thanks OP. And that would also be a hard NO from me. How could he possibly think that's a fair arrangement? At that point, you should be buying a new place as tenants in common with your ownership share reflecting what you can each afford to invest, or you buy elsewhere (if you can afford to) or rent elsewhere because, at that point, if he's still not prepared to co-own a home with you (even though not 50/50) then he would be proving that he has zero commitment to you and the relationship.
You say that although he hasn't discounted the T-I-C ownership arrangement, he's been "wishy washy" about it. Well, for now, you don't have to press this because it's a few years away (and you're still enjoying the relationship and neither of you ever want children), but every time the subject comes up over the next few years you just need to reiterate "Well, I would only consider upsizing if we bought as T-I-C, even if that means, DP, that you own 90% and I only own 10%." (Or a split like that.)
Incidentally, if you do end up in a long-term partnership, given he won't entertain marriage, it's essential you draw up Wills to protect each other in the event of either of you dying. (Sadly, without the protection of marriage or civil partnership, if your estates are worth more than the current NRB of £325k then the surviving partner won't inherit IHT-free.)

It never ceases to amaze me how many people here seem to regard romantic relationships as really just a Hobbesian war of all against all.

In a real partnership the kind of profit seeking and fearful accounting has no place. People emphasizing that he “enabled her to pay off her debts” are wrong. His passive support had zero opportunity cost for him as she could be replaced with a rent paying lodger. But that would not have been the gf he was seeking.

Right now his suggestion that he buy a bigger place and she pay rent is straight up exploitation. To the extent it makes fiscal sense for him it undercuts the romantic logic of her decisions.

OP I would suggest you slowly evaluate this relationship and consider moving out. You can date him, if you like, but maintain your own rental elsewhere. This offers you no security long term but neither does this “partner.” You don’t even have the security of a lease!

You are in your forties—better to get out, build equity, and look for a more generous and committed lover than to continue drifting with this one. He has a much shorter time horizon for this relationship than you do or than you have believed him to have. With the suggestion that you convert to renting from him do he can get a better house I really think he has crossed domestic invisible Rubicon. He now regards you as a potential source of income—as though he wants you to “repay” his passive generosity in letting you live with him for four years. How do you find your way into a true, loving, committed relationship from this? I don’t think you can.

see I looked at this that you have got yourself out of debt because he has not asked for rent all this time - its about time you pay your way.

I understand he has worked very hard for his home and I wouldn’t want to take any of that away from him.

If that’s true then you need to respect his wishes. I’m in a similar position to him, and if my DP only wanted to be with me because I could be his ticket to getting on the housing ladder, I’d tell him where to go.

The problem with you paying the mortgage on a new home would be that you would have the right to force a sale, so even if he got his money back he’d still lose his home. It’s not his fault that you didn’t have a home before you got together and he did and it’s not fair that he should take a risk when you only stand to gain.

it’s not fair that he should take a risk when you only stand to gain

The both stand to gain - it'll be a financial investment and a larger, presumably nicer place to live. That's why he's keen to do it with the OP subsidising it as a tenant.

I can understand that he wants to keep his house in his name, but if you buy a bigger house it should be as tenants in common, and you should then have a proportionate interest.
You are in a very vulnerable position if he dies, you not being married or on the mortgage. His next of kin will inherit and you will be homeless, unless he has a will naming you in it. This would really worry me.

Your arrangement up until now was one thing; now you're at a different stage in your relationship and finances, and it's completely appropriate that you can refresh and agree something different for the future. You shouldn't have the recent years hanging over you as PPs are suggesting, as if you owe him something.

You should have the opportunity to build equity and have home ownership, same as he has. I would insist on shared purchase (with ringfencing) and absolutely not pay rent.

Second @AvengersAssembIe comment - what happens if your DP gets hit by a bus? You need to be on the mortgage and deeds for this reason alone. You can't risk being homeless overnight, either because he chooses not to be in a relationship with you anymore, or because he dies.

That's all well and good and lovey and romantic and all. But some of us have been ruined by going all in for love. I will never ever do that again, and I have told my children to be wiser re their finances and not to make the mistakes I did. In that regard, they would be acting as per the OP's OH in this scenario.

That said, perhaps he and OP are just not meant to be - she may be better off exiting, and looking for a man with whom she is on a more equal footing financially, and there's none of this hassle about such things.

He did enable her to pay off her debts though, as she didn't have to pay any rent portion of her living expenses. That's a huge help. Sure, he saved on some bills, but she still came out better off than were it not for him.

I would be upfront and say that you won't be paying rent and you're happy to purchase as tenants in common. If he doesn't like that idea and still wants to buy the new house then he'll need to work out how to fund it and you'll need to find some alternative accomodation.

This. I find it very surprising that so many posters insist that compete parity is the only way forward, when I bet most of us earn different amounts to our partners. The the tenants in common arrangement is the solution though.

I love how several people have repeatedly asked what his financial planning is for her security if they break up or he dies and not once asked the OP what’s she’s saving for her own retirement.

FS can we stop treating women like these meek little half people who must shack up with a man with more money for “financial security”. OP’s a grown woman in the 40s, perfectly capable of working with minimal essential bills and should be focused on her own financial security.
No wonder a significant proportion of men refuse marriage, too many women seem to view it as a means to their money!

I don't think you can have a tenancy agreement if you are sharing the house with the owner. You would be a lodger rather than a tenant and would have very few rights.

You mean me, I think. I had already advised her to plan for her own financial security. You commented on a second post I made.