Partner moving out - how much to give them

[Housemum]

It's probably easiest if I set the full scenario out to avoid drip feeding - one of the parties is my child but I won't say which to avoid prejudicing the answers:

Pinky and Perky are a similar age, earning a similar amount. Pinky has savings of £20k, enough for a 10% deposit, and they buy a flat together. They are advised to buy as tenants in common in unequal shares but didn't do this, neither did they sign a deed of trust, but they did both agree that in the worst case scenario of selling up they would acknowledge the unequal share then split the rest 50/50. That assumed rising property prices though!

Two years later they split - Perky is staying in the property as their mother has redecorated their room and lets a grandchild use it at the weekends. Pinky is back with parents. Both contribute to the mortgage/bills whilst deciding what to do. Perky cannot afford the mortgage alone, as is now on a lower salary than Pinky and is also having some health issues meaning they are working reduced hours. Property prices have fallen so if they sell, they will not get back what they put in after taking off fees. Pinky has spoken to the bank who have agreed that they can have a 3 month trial if they move back in, if Pinky can demonstrate affordability they will take Perky off the mortgage (and Perky will come off the deeds).

Pinky's view - although I potentially could lose money if I have to sell any time soon, I'll give Perky back the £1000 they put in plus any items that they personally bought or had already got (some of the furniture, kitchen items etc) if the bank will let me stay. If instead we have to sell, we will just have to divide up whatever cash is left in a 1:20 ratio.

Perky's view - I want my £1000 back, but I also made payments over the years to the place and put time and effort in. I think I am owed something for that. Also, when we were dating Pinky stayed over at my parents' house. Pinky offered rent but my mum didn't take it. So therefore I should get what Pinky would have paid to my mum in rent.

Pinky did not stay at Perky's parents every night, and brought washing back to their parents. Pinky and Perky bought their own food.

Should Pinky pay more to Perky? Is Pinky being unfair to come out of this with more money? Or is Perky being unreasonable asking for money that Pinky hasn't got?

Hope you have managed to get to the end without being bored or confused - I wanted an outsider's opinion :)

Just to add, no children to consider. Both were working full time, Pinky earning slightly more than Perky, and towards the end Perky had had a lot of sick leave and was on reduced hours.

but they did both agree that in the worst case scenario of selling up they would acknowledge the unequal share then split the rest 50/50

That was what was agreed, therefore that is what should happen. The rest is irrelevant.

If the property is in negative equity then of course perky isn’t due anything.

The rent to his Mum issue is a total red herring and should be ignored.

Pinky’s deposit is deducted then the remaining equity is split 50/50. And obviously Perky would take their belongings.

Perky’s payments over the years are irrelevant. They paid for the roof over their head and that costs money. Perky certainly does not get money because Pinky stayed at their mums house rent free! That has nothing to do with this property. Any rent payment would belong to the mum, not to Perky. And the mum chose not to take rent money so Perky has no business asking for it. Especially when it was years ago!

Oh I just realised it’s in negative equity. In that case, if Perky sells Pinky their half at current market value they’d be left with a debt to pay to the bank! Because their half of the current value wouldn’t cover their half of the mortgage.

Not quite negative equity but no spare cash. They put in £21k, value fallen £15k. Mortgage has reduced a little bit not much as there’s an early redemption fee (was on a fixed rate). If Pinky stays they are taking a gamble on one day the value being enough that they get back what they put in. They will be stuck there for quite a few years though.

Pinky gets £20k back and Perky gets £1k back. They both suck up half of the £15k loss of equity. If that means Perky owes money to the bank then it’s tough. They both bought the house so they’re both equally responsible for the loss of equity. I don’t see why Perky should get off scot free while Pinky absorbs the full loss of equity!