What is fair for DP to contribute towards home I own?

[Namechange98457]

I own my own home, partner moved in 4 years ago before we had our DS. I pay the mortgage, he pays all bills. Food/things for DS is split equally. We don't pool wages every month, but we do have a shared bank account.

When it comes to repairs or improvements to the house, what is fair for him to contribute? As if it puts value on the house, he won't get any return from that and I will, but he is living there and it is our home, which I don't want to go to ruin and it does need money spending on it to make it nice and liveable for our DS.

At the moment, I am paying for all the big things like a new boiler, masonry paint, guttering fixed etc. These are very expensive and it's a struggle to do this on my own.

Is it fair that I pay, or do I ask for something towards it, as he lives there?

Or do I ask him to come onto the mortgage with me and we split everything down the middle.

@Alwaytired44
£300 a month half of which covers himself so £150 a month is as good as rent free

If he won't benefit from any property worth increase and you own the house it's your responsibility to pay in my eyes. The only way you can expect him to contribute in my eyes is if he was to be made a joint owner, but I personally wouldn't do that, if anything went wrong in your relationship, this is your safety net and security for you and your son.

It is too late now to probably change it, but it probably would have been better for him to give you a set amount each month when he moved in, l rather than covering set bills, like rent to help cover these things, but I think changing now would cause arguments. Luckily these things are one offs so just make do for a month or two till it evens out.

I moved in to my now-husband's house when we moved in together.

He continued to pay his mortgage, council tax, water and electric, etc. House-related costs. I paid all the other bills; plus our food. When we got the bathroom done, I paid 30%, he paid 70% - because I was benefiting from the new bathroom, but he would get the increase in value in the long run.

It didn't really end up mattering; we got married and moved house and now it's a joint asset, but it felt fair at the time.

This is a similar position to what I was in with my now husband.

When he moved in he earned considerably less than what I did, so we split things based on a portion of our income. However I always continued to pay the mortgage.
I did take a little bit of legal advice which said that if he contributed to large household improvements he could be seen by a court to be owed a percentage of a future sale.

We have since got married and are buying a house together. Part of that process we’ve got a deed of trust which states I get my deposit money back first the everything else is split 50/50.

I know this isn’t everyone’s opinion on how things should be done, but it’s what’s worked for us for a number of years.

I can't imagine many homes' bills total £300. My council tax alone (with single person supplement) is £150 per month.

Yes agree. Mine are substantially more. We are 1 adult, 1 student. Council tax + energy + water + broadband + mobile is at least £ 550 pcm. So that is not food, car, entertaining, subscriptions, hobbies, activities etc.

Think about what he'd be paying if he lived somewhere else!

That's really irrelevant

@TheSilkWorm

It's not irrelevant if the OP wants to ask him for a little more money and he doesn't want to pay!

She can simply tell him that he would be paying a lot more if he lived somewhere else!!!!

I’m a bit confused by the people that think partner should be paying only half the bills and nothing else! If he was living somewhere else he’d be paying rent/mortgage so yes, why shouldn’t he be paying partner some rent if not all the bills!?! Essentially he’s got £200 spare a month he can be saving for when they buy together!
bizarre

What about childcare bills? They are more than 300 a month ? Council tax? Food? Is he paying fir his child? Clothes toys outings?

The reasons are;
the OP is paying a mortgage: that's paying capital towards an asset, that is also appreciating in value. Her partner will not benefit in any way from that asset. Any 'rent' he pays to the OP is essentially profit for the OP. That's fine if you're a landlord, because the deal is that the tenant pays you money in order for you to profit from the risk or inconvenience that is involved in having a tenant or lodger. However when the relationship is two partners in a relationship, this is really inappropriate. One partner should not be profiting from the other.

Secondly, if OP allows a partner to contribute towards her mortgage, and they split up, she runs the risk that the partner could put a legal claim on her property. For the sake of a few £100 a month the risk is hardly worth it.

Much better in this situation is to keep the asset totally separate. Pay the mortgage herself, pay repairs herself and keep the equity herself. OR have him officially put on the mortgage, ring fencing her existing investment, and share the mortgage, repair costs and risk as well as the equity.

Does it make sense now?

Because he doesn‘t have security, if he was in a rental he would have a secure legally binding contract, if he had a mortgage as long as he pays he had a home for life. At the moment he can be made homeless at any time with zero legal come back, he wouldn’t even access to remove his belongings. He needs to have enough funds to move into a hotel at a moments notice and pay a rental deposit when something becomes available.

He should be paying half of the bills, plus whatever the rental market rate is for your home—as in what he’d be paying if you were both renting the house (1/2). He shouldn’t be living rent-free. (With a “renters logbook” so it’s clear in the eyes of the law that he’s a lodger, not an owner.

this is exactly what i was going to say. Half the bills and costs relating to your child , plus a nominal 'rent'

This isn't how the law works. He's NOT a lodger and having something written on paper to say he is will mean squat in a court of law if he takes her to court. He is her partner, and they live together in a relationship with a child. You can't retrofit the relationship into a landlord lodger one to avoid legal repercussions. If someone tried to claim their ex partner was a lodger and therefore hadn't contributed to the mortgage when the 'lodger' is the father of their child and can provide endless evidence of a relationship they would be severely criticised in court. It's lying.

I always feel in these situations that the answer to this is extremely simple. If you have someone living with you who is a friend whether that be a platonic friend a sexual partner or a family member, you charge them exactly what they would pay if they were renting a room in a househare.

It doesn't mean you're treating them is a lodger it just means that that's the fairest way to work out the finances.

Perhaps you could look at what he'd pay if he rented a room somewhere else. He could then give you half of that amount each month. You're both then better off and neither is taking advantage of the other. It could be a win/win situation!

Under the law of England and Wales someone that you allowed to live with you in your house, whether they pay rent or not, whether you are having sex with them or not, has absolutely no legal claim on that asset.

Half the bills and half the interest on the mortgage. The capital payment of the mortgage is your responsibility alone as you are paying off your asset.

@Ladyof2024 of course they can make a claim. Many legal cases have occurred due to this situation. I studied it in trust law a few years ago.

That's the only reason we are all saying "don't let him pay anything" -to avoid this!

You're incorrect here

Really you should be splitting the bills and you paying the mortgage - that's fairest, as the asset is yours (and half the bills are also yours). You could charge him rent, if you wanted him to pay for living there as you said - maybe get him to pay rent to the tune of half the mortgage or whatever seems reasonable and start saving it towards renovations etc?

He should pay half the bills plus half the mortgage as rent with no claim on the house. I'd rather throw him out and cover the bills myself and get CMS than let him freeload off me. He's rubbing his hands to have landed on his feet like this. Can't believe people are suggesting you let him live under your roof for free just because you own the house and he has not been as astute to buy his own place. Why should he get a free ride? Fuck that

We are warning her not to charge rent as we don't want her to potentially lose her house by having to sell up to pay him equity if they break up.