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.

Agreed!

If he can't afford it on his own but isn't ready to buy with someone else then this is not the house for him..or its not the right time

Many people buy houses together with the equity/mortgage split all legally sorted before hand and then if they split up they sell or but each other out its very common...

When i moved into my bf flat he owned/was buying when we met.. I paid my share of the bills/living expenses thats all... We got engaged whilst there and would have bought somewhere together if got married/needed something bigger. .
As it was we split up... No surprise we were in our 20s v common but
Also nice and easy ... Split the joint bills account and done..

I would suggest he buys somewhere he can afford on his own...

What a ridiculous opinion. He should be marrying her, not using her for sex and money also.

She needs a claim on the house,b on his money, pension all that. He can impregnate her

I wondered why British men are so selfish. I see now why. The mothers

I think he should marry her. But with a good prenup that follows all the UK guidelines so she can't just "clean him out".

Yes, everyone else in the world is unreasonable and you’re the only one who isn’t… have you considered for a single second that having the potential to impregnate someone doesn’t mean they’re entitled to your house, money and pension?

Normally if you rent from a landlord you get the whole property/ tenancy agreement etc. and within reason you can mostly do as you choose without having to consult them (might be some rules around pets / decorating but you agree to those when you sign the contract).

Alternatively you might be a lodger, in which case you probably pay a lot less, for less rights, but still get your own room, bills are likely included, use of some shared facilities and spaces.

It's unusual to rent half a bed, not sure how you'd work out the going rate for that.

But you are entitled to profit from someone you supposedly love? And to put their security and financial future at risk by inviting them to live with you, while charging them rent but not offering any of the usual legal protections that come with that?

Yes. If she doesn’t want to trade some security for cheaper rent than she’d be paying elsewhere then she doesn’t have to move in. She can live elsewhere - he’s not kidnapping her.

She has the same security as lodgers have. Why should he financially support her just because she’s his girlfriend if you think it’s so abhorrent that she should pay her way just because he’s her boyfriend?

How is paying his own mortgage financially supporting her? He doesn't have to ask her to move in with him.

She wouldn't be paying her own way; she would be buying her boyfriend a very valuable, long-term investment.

My dc was in a similar situation. dc had a deposit and mortgage for a flat (finances were very, very tight). Their partner had no cash and a little (student related) debt.

dc paid mortgage, was the only person on the title deeds, had solicitor agreed arrangement about the property rights/ownership.

dc's partner paid 50% of all bills (utilities, food, council tax). That sharing of bills made a very tight financial situation a little bit easier for dc.

The 'rent' amount that dc's partner would have paid previously, or might have paid to my dc, was paid into a joint bank account. They chose to use their joint savings to pay off the student debt. Thereafter they had a joint savings account.

They are still together. But if they split up the partner would get 50% of the joint savings account.

Also dc's partner could save their own money (50% of bills and a rent equivalent were much less than their income).

My child is in a position where she could buy a house, and has considered it, but ultimately decided against it, preferring to wait until she and her boyfriend are in a more equal position. She lives at home, so she doesn't have to weigh up the benefits of a mortgage vs renting. She can leave her money in a savings account to build up interest instead.

When she asked for my advice on how buying a house with someone who has considerably less capital than her should work, I told her the same as I am saying on here. Either, he goes on the mortgage, they both pay towards it, and have a legal agreement drawn up to reflect who receives what based on how much they have each invested - e.g if she paid £100,000 deposit but 0% of the mortgage, if the house sold she would get £100,000 back, he would get 100% of the equity up to the price they paid for the house, any profit should be split equally. Or, she can buy it in her name, outright or with a mortgage, and he either doesn't move in or pays only 50% of the bills and groceries, and she pays 100% of the mortgage and/or home improvements/maintenance because it is 100% her asset.

I pointed out the effect it might have on their relationship if she asked him to pay her mortgage without any rights to the property.