girlfriend wants half!
Discussion
She's entitled to sweet f
k all.
She's paid a few utility bills for what, 4 months? The most she could get back is those, but she won't, as she had a roof over her head in return, and even if she did get them back, her solicitor would cost her more than the bills she'd paid.
Seriously, tell her to fk off.
k all.She's paid a few utility bills for what, 4 months? The most she could get back is those, but she won't, as she had a roof over her head in return, and even if she did get them back, her solicitor would cost her more than the bills she'd paid.
Seriously, tell her to f
k off.KrazyIvan said:
that's exactly same thing.....did you Google that Utility bills don't count. Just because she's payed towards some consumables that help keep the house warm, the toilet being flushed after she took a dump, and the landing light on when she went upstairs, doesn't mean she's entitled to claim any value from your property.
No matter how long she's been paying them.
Cobnapint said:
Following some of the logic on here, if she borrowed your car one day, put some petrol in it and kept the receipt - she's entitled to half of that too...!
The OH and I have been paying ALL the bills on the house we've been renting for the last four years. I guess we should put in our equity claim! Well unlike many that are contributing to this thread I've actually been there, I owned a house and met a woman that lived with me for for over two years, she didn't pay a single bill but that didn't stop her going for the house when we split up.
Luckily she got nothing but I was told in no uncertain terms if she had so much as paid the water bill the story would have been very different, having your kids living with you and paying board or renting privately is not the same thing as hilarious as the responses are.
By the way solicitors fees were around £1750 in 1998
If she believed she was contributing to the cost of the house in some way regardless whether she paid the mortgage directly or indirectly via paying bills or buying the shopping then she has a claim.
As I said before op you are lucky it's only been a few months, ignore her unless she takes it further.
Luckily she got nothing but I was told in no uncertain terms if she had so much as paid the water bill the story would have been very different, having your kids living with you and paying board or renting privately is not the same thing as hilarious as the responses are.
By the way solicitors fees were around £1750 in 1998
If she believed she was contributing to the cost of the house in some way regardless whether she paid the mortgage directly or indirectly via paying bills or buying the shopping then she has a claim.
As I said before op you are lucky it's only been a few months, ignore her unless she takes it further.
Some lame-ass advice in this thread. You don't even need a trip to a solicitor. She has zero claim on any aspect of your property. The law society have been dying to get girlfriends recognised as common law spouses for years but as every high up Judge has a mistress there's no fecking chance of it ever happening!!
I wonder how unreasonable it really is. 4 months of paying the bills doesn't qualify one for much, but if she's been providing accommodation for the previous five years... is this situation *really* that uneven? Perhaps I'm being unreasonably charitable, but it sounds like there could be some details that we aren't being given here. And the fact that the OP is asking internet randos for advice, rather than paying a lawyer to get quality info, makes me wonder whether their judgement may not be so sound that we can automatically trust their viewpoint.
But why listen to me? Why not pay a lawyer to ask you the right questions and give you some proper advice.
But why listen to me? Why not pay a lawyer to ask you the right questions and give you some proper advice.
And assuming the guise of many other "experts" at various times.Land and property trust law is complicated, and someone can acquire an interest in a property though numerous means.
The OP appears to have had an agreement that he will pay the mortgage and she will pay the utilities etc. That would be sufficient to acquire an interest.
I note the OP didn't answer my question about the 5 years cohabitation at her home. This will be relevant too as she may argue she indirectly contributed towards the deposit. For example, she paid all the housing costs so he could save the deposit for them. Research promissory estoppel.
The OP appears to have had an agreement that he will pay the mortgage and she will pay the utilities etc. That would be sufficient to acquire an interest.
I note the OP didn't answer my question about the 5 years cohabitation at her home. This will be relevant too as she may argue she indirectly contributed towards the deposit. For example, she paid all the housing costs so he could save the deposit for them. Research promissory estoppel.
Sheets Tabuer said:
Well unlike many that are contributing to this thread I've actually been there, I owned a house and met a woman that lived with me for for over two years....
Luckily she got nothing but I was told in no uncertain terms if she had so much as paid the water bill the story would have been very different...
If she believed she was contributing to the cost of the house in some way regardless whether she paid the mortgage directly or indirectly via paying bills or buying the shopping then she has a claim.
Whoever told you that is talking crap.Luckily she got nothing but I was told in no uncertain terms if she had so much as paid the water bill the story would have been very different...
If she believed she was contributing to the cost of the house in some way regardless whether she paid the mortgage directly or indirectly via paying bills or buying the shopping then she has a claim.
You are not contributing to the cost of the house or mortgage 'indirectly' by paying half the water bill. She is using half of the water - she pays half. It has nowt to do with ownership of the bricks and mortar.
If she'd contributed to major works, renovation or an extension that adds value to the property - then that's a different story.
Cobnapint said:
Whoever told you that is talking crap.
You are not contributing to the cost of the house or mortgage 'indirectly' by paying half the water bill. She is using half of the water - she pays half. It has nowt to do with ownership of the bricks and mortar.
If she'd contributed to major works, renovation or an extension that adds value to the property - then that's a different story.
Do you know this is true without doubt or are you just doing a Yipper and assuming it's correct because it sounds reasonable to you?You are not contributing to the cost of the house or mortgage 'indirectly' by paying half the water bill. She is using half of the water - she pays half. It has nowt to do with ownership of the bricks and mortar.
If she'd contributed to major works, renovation or an extension that adds value to the property - then that's a different story.
On a different note, and I've been saying this for years, I've seen many blokes who were married lose half of everything. House, pension, the lot. And they were the bread winners too.
The law does seem to financially benefit the female in cases where marriage and/or children are involved. And that's why so many of them try it on. The fat cheque must be a cure for a post relationship blues.
The law does seem to financially benefit the female in cases where marriage and/or children are involved. And that's why so many of them try it on. The fat cheque must be a cure for a post relationship blues.
MrBarry123 said:
Cobnapint said:
Whoever told you that is talking crap.
You are not contributing to the cost of the house or mortgage 'indirectly' by paying half the water bill. She is using half of the water - she pays half. It has nowt to do with ownership of the bricks and mortar.
If she'd contributed to major works, renovation or an extension that adds value to the property - then that's a different story.
Do you know this is true without doubt or are you just doing a Yipper and assuming it's correct because it sounds reasonable to you?You are not contributing to the cost of the house or mortgage 'indirectly' by paying half the water bill. She is using half of the water - she pays half. It has nowt to do with ownership of the bricks and mortar.
If she'd contributed to major works, renovation or an extension that adds value to the property - then that's a different story.
Okay, thanks.
OP - go and speak with a solicitor. No-one has yet given you advice you can absolutely rely on and using the "fk off" defence probably won't help if she does decide to take things further.
The chances are she is just bitter and won't try however, at least for me, the peace of mind would do wonders.
OP - go and speak with a solicitor. No-one has yet given you advice you can absolutely rely on and using the "f
k off" defence probably won't help if she does decide to take things further.The chances are she is just bitter and won't try however, at least for me, the peace of mind would do wonders.
zygalski said:
Cobnapint said:
I'm living with my girlfriend in my house at the moment. Suffice to say, I researched the hell out of it before letting her move in.
Was a condition of her occupancy a trip to solicitors to draw up an agreement, you old romantic, you?Im no solicitor and most here are not but its probably sound advise that she isn't entitled to 50%
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2012/aug/29/has-...
Go and get some proper legal advice and a formal letter from a Solicitor which should be friendly but firm and your issues should be over........Oh and change the door locks now.....
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2012/aug/29/has-...
Go and get some proper legal advice and a formal letter from a Solicitor which should be friendly but firm and your issues should be over........Oh and change the door locks now.....
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff