Should his girlfriend pay rent?

[bluedelphiniums]

My son is hoping to buy his first house, and to move into it with his girlfriend. They split up for a few weeks last summer but are back together now and seem happy. The reason I mention that is because I have advised him not to get into a shared mortgage with someone if there's any prospect of their relationship not lasting, as it complicates things. He earns quite a lot more than her, but is stretching himself financially to get the mortgage he needs to pay for the right house which he views as a longterm investment. I asked him if she was going to pay rent and he said he thought she'd just say, if she has to pay rent then she might just as well put herself on the mortgage and buy the house with him. Is it unreasonable to expect her to pay her own way? She is currently paying monthly rent, same as him, at the house they live at. I don't think she should be expecting to pay nothing and effectively to live for free. Does anyone have experience of this situation with their own children? TIA.

You can't compare paying towards the mortgage of someone you are supposed to be in an equal, loving partnership with to paying rent to a landlord who offers you a legally binding contract with all the rights and protection that offers.

Security and equal footing in the relationship is more important than the money, imo. It's either his house and she can choose to live there for the benefit of cheaper living costs but with the risk of being made homeless or it is their house, they both pay the mortgage and they both own a share of the equity and enjoy the legal protections being joint owners brings.

OP of course she should pay something, can you imagine being advised to let a boy friend more in rent free?
and of course it’s ok for your ds to ask for advise, there was a thread here the other day and a dd and renting of in-laws and there wasn’t much suggestion that the op shouldn’t be be asking for advice.

He should seek legal advice, and she should either pay for bills, and or some food as a contribution, and then save the reminder for herself, and I guess if that doesn’t suit her she should stay put. No one would move into my home rent free.

To me it is fair if she pays ‘rent’ and he saves it. If and when they get married and get a mortgage together that is then her contribution. My husband took lower than market rent from me (we were sharing a room of course, but it was a 3 bed, so I paid £500pm which in our area was good value for me) and did it as an overpayment on the mortgage (although I think this isn’t the best idea as maybe I’d have had a claim) but saving it and then paying later - no need to tell her this- will mean they can have an equal share in married life)

I think that's sensible.

It doesn’t benefit both of them. It benefits him. If they split up, she would have no asset.

Why can’t she save it? Is she not to be trusted?

Because they are not married, have no children and are both able-bodied with full-time jobs. She earns more but it’s not her responsibility to bear the entire cost of housing them both!

Both of them benefit from the current living arrangements. She is better off than she would be without him living there because she is able to save the money he gives her. He is better off because he gives her much less than he would be paying anywhere else for rent. They also both benefit from sharing bills of course.

If he gave her nothing, he would be the main beneficiary of the arrangement. The reason she could afford the flat was because we gave her a big deposit. We did that to help her, not to enable him to live rent free!

I wouldn't move into the house if I was her. She's living with him now, but he doesn't want to buy a house with her.

In that case, just charge her for the bills only and food of course.

He's going to have to pay his own mortgage.If he doesn't want her to have a claim on it.

No rent. He marries her, then she lives with him. He's very greedy. Woman , bed partner and she has to pat rent. Not in my world

And the house ends up entirely his. The mother's acting as if he's doing her a favour but in fact, he's offering her crumbs.

Also to man up and marry her.

What misogynistic crap.

I wouldn't want my son profiting off a women who should be putting the money towards her own future.

Why on earth is it okay for the OP to advise her son to protect HIS asset by not having a shared mortgage but fine for him to profit off a women by having her pay towards an asset that becomes solely his? If the house is his, he pays for it.

The only fair way forwards is for her to pay solely towards bills and living expenses and to put her remaining monies into savings so she can buy her own property.

After all this is supposed to be a woman he loves and cherishes. He should want her to have the same level of security as him should they part. The fact he sees the relationship as so transactional and is already looking at how to lock her out of financial security rather than considering her wellbring is very concerning. She's just a cash cow to him.

No doubt he won't have the same reservations about using her for housework, wife work and risking her health giving birth.

My DH earned significantly more than me so I didn't pay for anything. As I earned more I paid half the bills (food, electricity etc) but I never paid any rent. If he's struggling to pay it, then she could pay a nominal amount, something what a lodger would.

50% of relationships fail there not married so it’s entirely sensible to protect yourself

How is equality misogynistic? 😂😂😂😂

If a man doesn’t pay for a woman because he loves her then that misogyny to you? If she loves him, why doesn’t she pay for him? Oh, because anything where women aren’t “winning” is offensive to you? 😂😂😂🙄

They're not married.

Okay, that's fine, but then he shouldn't be moving her into his house then if he's not going marry her.

He can't take out a mortgage. Have her live in it and pay towards his asset and leave her with nothing. She also needs to safeguard her future so that she doesn't end up paying half of someone else's mortgage with nothing for herself.

I would ask her for half of the utility bills in the council tax and the food bill and leave it that. He pays 100% of the mortgage. And she gets to save money to towards her own home

If he does decide to marry her things, change and she gets put on the house deeds.

She likes the house and is pushing him to buy it and live there for free? The house which will stretch HIM financially?

I'd definitely not put her on the mortgage and not buy the house she wants but the one he wants.

If she wasn't there he'd have to fund the house himself or get a lodger. The lodger would have their own space and not share a room. To expect her to pay like a lodger isn't the same really is it?

She should share all household costs. He will benefit from sharing those bills

I think she is vulnerable not having any home that she is financially invested in. Whilst you regard this as a massive plus for her, I feel its a terrible position. Different perspectives. As the mum of a daughter in this position I really wish she wasn't. I'd like her to be finding her own property not investing time and money into someone else's

Agree. Especially given they split briefly last year.

No, she would be the main beneficiary because if they split up she’d own a house and he’d be homeless. All of his rent money is lost to her, and all of her money is being retained by her in an asset.

Personally I never paid my boyfriend - now husband - rent. I paid half the other bills but it wasn’t my job to contribute to his asset. And he ring fenced it with a prenup when we married.

I’m not a tenant I’m a partner.

It does benefit both of them - she gets to live in a lovely house and he has an investment.

What does your son want? Does he want sole ownership? Or would he preferred they purchased together? If the latter, then suggest he changes the plan to buy it together. If the former, you need to stop, as encouraging she pay rent may give her a legal claim on the property, should they split.

Well if they break up it would be his as it was ‘rent’?

agree she should pay rent- but take legal advice to make sure it’s seen as a rent payment and also provides her with some protection so she can’t immediately be kicked out.

sounds like they are young and in the early stages of a relationship.

People have said he is profiting from a partner charging her rent but she is also profiting from not paying rent (which she currently is)

if he were to buy it and live separately vs having his gf live there rent free, he would be in exactly the same situation if they broke up in 5 years time. The gf, however, would be 5 years of rent better off if they split up in 5 years time and she had saved it.

a fairer way would be to halve the amount of rent she is currently paying e.g she currently pays £600 per month and pays your son £300 per month and then saves £300 per month in her own name. This means they are equally the same amount better off should they split up in the future.

the other comments are red herrings
e.g if they split up she would have contributed to someone else’s mortgage and got nothing- same as renting
romantic partner not a lodger- but it doesn’t sound like they are at the point of being serious enough if they have already broken up in the last year

alot of people still think it’s the 50s and people should get married before living together or living together automatically means you are ready to get married/serious.

I say this as someone who has been in this position and also have a daughter.

most important thing is to take legal advice to confirm the rent.