Calculating rent share!

AbigailAC

Hi everyone!
I need help in calculating how to share the rent of a shared apartment!

My husband and I are planning on sharing an apartment with another person.

These would all be double bedrooms, yet how is it usually done? Equal parts of rent, divide it by the people living for services? I don't think splitting everything into 3 would be fair, since a double bedroom is always cheaper than two singles.

Any successful experiences will be greatly appreciated!
Many thanks!!

Batgurl

How many bedrooms, how many people in total and how many bathrooms? Is there a car space and who will use it?

AbigailAC

Batgurl wrote: »

How many bedrooms, how many people in total and how many bathrooms? Is there a car space and who will use it?

We haven't decided on an apartment yet. The
one we'll be viewing has 2 en suite bedrooms
and 1 extra bathroom (3 bathrooms in total). No
cars will be involved. One couple and one single
person.

cerastes

AbigailAC wrote: »

Hi everyone!
I need help in calculating how to share the rent of a shared apartment!

My husband and I are planning on sharing an apartment with another person.

These would all be double bedrooms, yet how is it usually done? Equal parts of rent, divide it by the people living for services? I don't think splitting everything into 3 would be fair, since a double bedroom is always cheaper than two singles.

Any successful experiences will be greatly appreciated!
Many thanks!!

What? do I have this right? you think a double shared is cheaper than two singles?? this is why adverts for sharing say no couples!
So, its a double (you and the husband) and two single rooms, with two individuals? or two individuals sharing a room with two single beds?? whats the split?
Need to know the split?

edit, From what I gather, you seem to think splitting it 50:50 between (you/your husband):(the other person), if thats the case, seems a tad unfair, hope you're letting the other person know what your intention is.
And where are you getting the two singles from then so?

Split three ways in this case I'd say, their advantage and your loss is minimal.
Thats rent and bills, you weren't thinking of splitting the bills 50:50 too where you?

Batgurl

AbigailAC wrote: »

We haven't decided on an apartment yet. The
one we'll be viewing has 2 en suite bedrooms
and 1 extra bathroom (3 bathrooms in total). No
cars will be involved. One couple and one single
person.

That simplifies it.

I've done that spilt before. We broke it up 40% (single), 30% (boyfriend) 30% (girlfriend). Our reasoning is that yes, you deserve a discount for sharing a bedroom but everything else is common ground - kitchen, living room, dining room, hallways.

Bills are split three ways.

AbigailAC

cerastes wrote: »

What? do I have this right? you think a double shared is cheaper than two singles?? this is why adverts for sharing say no couples!
So, its a double (you and the husband) and two single rooms, with two individuals? or two individuals sharing a room with two single beds?? whats the split?
Need to know the split?

edit, From what I gather, you seem to think splitting it 50:50 between (you/your husband):(the other person), if thats the case, seems a tad unfair, hope you're letting the other person know what your intention is.
And where are you getting the two singles from then so?

Split three ways in this case I'd say, their advantage and your loss is minimal.
Thats rent and bills, you weren't thinking of splitting the bills 50:50 too where you?

Thanks for your input. If I were to think that splitting 50:50 were fair, I wouldn't be asking for opinions. Nor I think splitting in 3 is (I'm not arguing- only sharing my point of view).

Rest assured that I'm looking for a fair way as objective as possible.

What I said about one double room being cheaper than two singes is based in my experience so far. Again, thanks for your opinion.

There are no single rooms in this scenario. Only double rooms, one occupied by a couple and one by a single person.

AbigailAC

Batgurl wrote: »

That simplifies it.

I've done that spilt before. We broke it up 40% (single), 30% (boyfriend) 30% (girlfriend). Our reasoning is that yes, you deserve a discount for sharing a bedroom but everything else is common ground - kitchen, living room, dining room, hallways.

Bills are split three ways.

That's very helpful! Thanks a lot!

cerastes

AbigailAC wrote: »

Thanks for your input. If I were to think that splitting 50:50 were fair, I wouldn't be asking for opinions. Nor I think splitting in 3 is (I'm not arguing- only sharing my point of view).

Rest assured that I'm looking for a fair way as objective as possible.

What I said about one double room being cheaper than two singes is based in my experience so far. Again, thanks for your opinion.

There are no single rooms in this scenario. Only double rooms, one occupied by a couple and one by a single person.

Fair enough, I'm not having a go, but I've come up against this couples thing in the past.
If there are not two singles, not sure why it would be brought up,
but out of curiosity if there was a double and a room with two single beds in it OR a double and two seperate single rooms, how would you split that?

I cant see how either of those situations would justify the people in the double paying less rent as its their choice and requirement to share, if anything doubles cost more to rent individually, if an extra person turned up in that situation a premium could be charged, hence double rooms being let in houses either saying no couples, or a premium added for it.

Personally, in the situation you now describe, I still think it should be split 3 ways, its your requirement and choice to have a double, the other person is just getting a larger room as the place you describe has another double room, I dont see what significant advantage they have that you'd try foist a greater share of the rent on them, dont see that they should be penalised for this and I'd suggest you bring it up with them to see what they say as if they dont know and agree in advance as early as possible you might find it could cause tension (as I say, Ive come across this myself and having been told about it, where a couple will try pull this whole thing that they are sharing a space and try pay less in rent and bills. I think this comes up more than I've experienced, hence advertisements for sharing saying "no couples".

Batgurl

cerastes wrote: »

I dont see what significant advantage they have that you'd try foist a greater share of the rent on them, dont see that they should be penalised for this

The advantage is that a 2-bed will obviously be cheaper than a 3-bed so even though they will appear to be paying a bigger %, they are actually paying less money.

Eg a 2-bed costs €300 per week.

40% = €120 per week

A 3-bed costs €450 per week.

Split three ways = $150 per week.

By living with a couple, single people also benefit. A lot of singles can't handle living with a couple but it does have its benefits.

Victor

This may be zealous, but it is one way of doing things - The Equitable Houseshare

cerastes

Batgurl wrote: »

The advantage is that a 2-bed will obviously be cheaper than a 3-bed so even though they will appear to be paying a bigger %, they are actually paying less money.

Eg a 2-bed costs €300 per week.

40% = €120 per week

A 3-bed costs €450 per week.

Split three ways = $150 per week.

By living with a couple, single people also benefit. A lot of singles can't handle living with a couple but it does have its benefits.

But you edit they, dont need a three bed??
And the lesser rent is an advantage enjoyed by all, yet you still suggest that you and your husband should pay even less still??

By your own rationale, €300 split three ways is €100 each,
which is a hundred euro saving for you and your husband over what you'd pay individually for a single room in the €450 scenario.
In your 40/60 split you save €20 a week between you and your husband or €10 each and are willing to let your co-tenant pay €30 extra a week for very limited benefit (slightly more space, which as far as I can see is all the benefit there is).

Have you informed your co-tenant of this percent split you consider fair? and what that works out at in € value per week?

It kind of seems you'd be happier if people came on here with replies that agreed with your view. Almost like an underhanded dig, some single people cant handle living with a couple, what! bit of a laugh that!?, some people cant handle the penny pinching some couples (but people generally) would get up to, I suggest you measure the square metres and go from there, maybe your tenant will see what you're like and realise they wont be allocated enough toilet paper to wipe their arse at the end of the month from the kitty.

Whats the advantage??? for the single person? not to be alone???
Could you elaborate on these benefits? honestly, please do, I'm genuinely interested to hear, maybe they are worth it??

Again, so we're clear, I am not having a go at you, but I am aghast that you'd consider this??? I hope this person isn't a friend?

As I mentioned, you are already making a saving based on your example of a 2bed vs 3bed, it seems you are trying to wring some extra advantage out of the single vs couple side of things.

Double bedrooms rented in a house sharing arrangement, usually cost x, but you will see a lot of "no couples" in the ads, an extra person means a premium would be added for the double.

padma

did this with an ex in a three bedroomed house. 1 room kept as a spare, bills shared 3 ways, rent shared 3 ways, everybody happy. myself and the ex had the slightly bigger bedroom, but the other person had a big room too.

Batgurl

cerastes wrote: »

But you dont need a three bed??
And the lesser rent is an advantage enjoyed by all, yet you still suggest that you and your husband should pay even less still??

By your own rationale, €300 split three ways is €100 each,
which is a hundred euro saving for you and your husband over what you'd pay individually for a single room in the €450 scenario.
In your 40/60 split you save €20 a week between you and your husband or €10 each and are willing to let your co-tenant pay €30 extra a week for very limited benefit (slightly more space, which as far as I can see is all the benefit there is).

Have you informed your co-tenant of this percent split you consider fair? and what that works out at in € value per week?

It kind of seems you'd be happier if people came on here with replies that agreed with your view. Almost like an underhanded dig, some single people cant handle living with a couple, what! bit of a laugh that!?, some people cant handle the penny pinching some couples (but people generally) would get up to, I suggest you measure the square metres and go from there, maybe your tenant will see what you're like and realise they wont be allocated enough toilet paper to wipe their arse at the end of the month from the kitty.

Whats the advantage??? for the single person? not to be alone???
Could you elaborate on these benefits? honestly, please do, I'm genuinely interested to hear, maybe they are worth it??

Again, so we're clear, I am not having a go at you, but I am aghast that you'd consider this??? I hope this person isn't a friend?

As I mentioned, you are already making a saving based on your example of a 2bed vs 3bed, it seems you are trying to wring some extra advantage out of the single vs couple side of things.

Double bedrooms rented in a house sharing arrangement, usually cost x, but you will see a lot of "no couples" in the ads, an extra person means a premium would be added for the double.

Dude - you need to take a massive chill pill!

I'm not the OP. I'm an independent third party. And I'm coming from the POV of a single person who has in the past shared with a couple. Not a scheming couple determined to cheat a single person as you seem to think.

As a single I was happy to pay slightly more because I was still saving compared to living in a three bed.

Also the bonus of a smaller apartment meaning cheaper bills split between three made it cheaper than sharing with just one other person in a 2-bed.

I'm not insisting that this is the path the OP takes, merely passing on my experience of how we did it successfully.

cerastes

Victor wrote: »

This may be zealous, but it is one way of doing things - The Equitable Houseshare

In a lot of ways, I think rules do need to be agreed to, and its probably better done in advance.
But I dont really think there is an absolute requirement to be pedantic about the cost split unless there is a significant disparity in the size of a room or access to a facility (e.g. ensuite, which is not the case in the OPs example as they both have an ensuite) or when there are a larger number rooms and of occupants, then it needs to be considered.

The benefit for all of them is, they can have extra person/people in to share the cost of a property and bills, which would likely be a cost benefit over going on their own circumstances (singles/couples), they make a saving over a 3 bed (which isn't required) and the couple is going to want (most likely) a shared room, which is likely to be the larger shared room.

I am genuinely interested for the OP edit batgurl, to tell me of the benefits a single tenant gets from sharing with a couple specifically, that the couple doesn't get from sharing with the single person anyway??

edit, I see batgurl posted, I did mix up the OP and this person, but, no chill pill is required, back handed insult much? Its just my opinion, from first hand experience, couple, sharing a larger room, with extra facilities, treated it like one persons rent and portion of bills, seen the opinion a few times and its nothing short of tight.

hfallada

I would do 50:50 on the rent. But split all bills into 3 equal parts. The single individual could always get an extra person in his/her room if they aren't happy with the rent

Thoie

I'd split everything 3 ways. The argument that the single has "more room" is not exactly their fault, and in a lot of those situations, one of the double rooms will be slightly bigger than the other, and the couple usually get the slightly bigger bedroom.

The marginal extra few feet of carpet in a bedroom don't make up for other irritations in the rest of the house. The couple get more votes in what to watch on the television, the couple use the washing machine more, the couple use more hot water. The couple may end up having more "cosy nights in" snuggled up on the couch, where the single feels they need to vacate the sitting room for a few hours.

Think about it this way - if, sometime after you'd moved in, your parnter left you for the 3rd person in the house, would you be happy to start paying the extra while the others pay the reduced amount?

Or if your partner left the house completely, would you be happy to cover their missing rent and pay 60%, or would you then expect an equal split?

cerastes

Batgurl wrote: »

Dude - you need to take a massive chill pill!

I'm not the OP. I'm an independent third party. And I'm coming from the POV of a single person who has in the past shared with a couple. Not a scheming couple determined to cheat a single person as you seem to think.

As a single I was happy to pay slightly more because I was still saving compared to living in a three bed.

Also the bonus of a smaller apartment meaning cheaper bills split between three made it cheaper than sharing with just one other person in a 2-bed.

I'm not insisting that this is the path the OP takes, merely passing on my experience of how we did it successfully.

That benefit is shared by all, why should the couple reap an additional benefit? seems like penny pinching to me.
When there is a larger number of rooms and co tenants, with a greater difference in sizes and spaces like ensuites, then working out the rent needs to be considered, but in such a simple split, it should just be 3 ways, anything more seems tight.

Batgurl

Except the couple has to share a bathroom...and wardrobe space...and other storage space AND floor space.

If you were living in a 3-bed and 1 of the rooms was ensuite with a built in wardrobe and the other two rooms had to share a bathroom and built-in wardrobe space, do you still think they should all pay equal rent?

cerastes

Batgurl wrote: »

Except the couple has to share a bathroom...and wardrobe space...and other storage space AND floor space.

If you were living in a 3-bed and 1 of the rooms was ensuite with a built in wardrobe and the other two rooms had to share a bathroom and built-in wardrobe space, do you still think they should all pay equal rent?

They should get out a slide rule and calculate the amount of time on the toilet,
what are the next disadvantages for the couple? larger room, likely larger wardrobe/storage space, its the nature of being a couple, (sharing) if they need some space, well they wont be spending all their time in that room, why should someone else be penalised for that, unless there is some large difference in facility use/circumstances.
So
Dutch ovens for her? and him not being able to get into the toilet in the morning?? so they should pay less maybe.

In regard to your post, if there are extra/differing facilities, more rooms, larger difference in the size of rooms, more tenants, then, as my other post has said, that is when it needs to be calculated to ensure fairness, as that could be a scenario where one person is in a small single room and a couple could be in a double with an ensuite.

As it is, the rooms are similar in size?? both have ensuites, all save relative to living on their own circumstances for accomodation and other associated costs, scrimping and wringing a few extra euro out of a fellow housemate under similar circumstances, well it'd concern me, where else it would lead to, bills etc.

Thoie put it better and more simply in their last line of their post

Batgurl

Answer my question...

sawdoubters

splitting into 3 is fair as you would get the double room,you also use equal amount of space water electricity


why should 1 person pay more

cerastes

Batgurl wrote: »

Except the couple has to share a bathroom...and wardrobe space...and other storage space AND floor space.

If you were living in a 3-bed and 1 of the rooms was ensuite with a built in wardrobe and the other two rooms had to share a bathroom and built-in wardrobe space, do you still think they should all pay equal rent?

Batgurl wrote: »

Answer my question...

Do you mean, can I answer your question please? otherwise that post seems a bit demanding and, well poorly mannered.

The thing is, thats not relevant to the OPs circumstance.
But you'd still need to be more specific, 3 bed ok, but how many people?
Are there any sharing?,its unlikely seperate rooms would be sharing storage and bigger rooms would have larger/more storage. The number of people and how many are sharing compared to the number of people, thats were it gets sticky, otherwise its easy to allocate based on size of rooms and facilities, but in the OPs situation, the only difference is a couple in one room.

In the past when looking at the prices of rooms let in houses and the price of rented houses, double rooms demand a premium, couples are often not accepted but having a couple in a room demands a premium, other bills are then shared by the total number of people.

But this situation is so simple as there is so little difference

and as I have said, now for the 3rd time,
if there are extra/differing facilities, more rooms, larger difference in the size of rooms, more tenants, then, as my other post has said, that is when it needs to be calculated to ensure fairness, as that could be a scenario where one person is in a small single room and a couple could be in a double with an ensuite.

cerastes

Batgurl wrote: »

Answer my question...

I demand an immediate response! :P

cerastes

Victor wrote: »

This may be zealous, but it is one way of doing things - The Equitable Houseshare

This is interesting, but where are you getting this (2 times) value from?

2 times the total number of tenants?
and
2 times the total area?

Batgurl

Your argument is based off what ifs and possibilities. You are assuming that the couple will get a bigger room. The OP never said this.

My argument is based on the facts as stated. That, all things being equal, the single person will have more sq metre floor space because of sole use of bedroom and bathroom.

Your looking at this from the point of view of the couple getting a good deal. I'm looking at it from the point of view of the single getting a good deal. It's what we in the real world call an arrangement that is mutually beneficial. Both parties win!

Boombastic

Split 3 ways

cerastes

Batgurl wrote: »

Your argument is based off what ifs and possibilities. You are assuming that the couple will get a bigger room. The OP never said this.

My argument is based on the facts as stated. That, all things being equal, the single person will have more sq metre floor space because of sole use of bedroom and bathroom.

Your looking at this from the point of view of the couple getting a good deal. I'm looking at it from the point of view of the single getting a good deal. It's what we in the real world call an arrangement that is mutually beneficial. Both parties win!

The OP certainly never said it, so you're assuming yourself its something else, so maybe they could come back and give us an update on the possible options, but it seems more than likely two people sharing are going to have the bigger room, just because they share it is a bit unreasonable to suggest they have half the space, unless they walk under each others feet all the time, thats not practical or make sense to think they will always be in the same room. If they need some extra storage, will the single housemate charge them, doubtful.
I said in certain circumstances, calculations would have to be made and that would make sense given a variety of room sizes and arrangements of couples/singles, sharing etc. In this case I suggested an even 3 way split.

I'm looking at it from a point of fairness, any advantage gained by the single person in a larger unshared square metered area (how pedantic to begrudge them some extra sq metres) is surely matched by the fact that they all benefit the advantage of cheaper accommodation that costs less to run. The couple by 50% more than the single person going by the example earlier.

cerastes

Boombastic wrote: »

Split 3 ways

everything? :eek:;)

dede12

Personally I do think splitting everything 3 ways does sound fair. I know in normal houseshare situations the people in a shared twin room pay less than someone in unshared double but I dont really think that applies here.

My reasoning is that sharing a space with a spouse/SO is fundamentally different than sharing a room with a friend. It's different because when you have a roommate, you really only have access to half the room you live in and normally one twin sized bed. In that case you are trying to fit two separate lives into the one room, generally speaking you aren't supposed to go into 'their' half of the room without permission, have to stay out of their storage space, and off their bed, etc. Plus, you have far less privacy when sharing with a friend. If you are incompatible personality wise it just gets even harder.

Whereas I think it's different for a couple because even though there are two people sharing a room, each person has full access to the *entire* shared space, not just the half of the room their stuff is on. As one half of the couple you are entitled to use any space in the room anyway you want because you both have full ownership of the room. If your spouse's belongings are in the way, you can move them, you don't feel like there are areas of the space are 'off limits' to you, unlike in a shared twin. And you arent having to sleep in a tiny twin bed either. Plus the privacy aspect isn't such as big deal as you are sharing your life with this person, unlike with a roommate, its not likely to be awkward if one person wants to get changed or something. Plus if you need it, its much easier to say to a SO that you need some space than it would be ask a roommate to leave the room they are entitled to be in.

On top of all that, normally sharing with a couple means the couple will start to take over the shared areas of the house (often unintentionally). So the single person can start to feel like a third wheel in their own home, since oftentimes it becomes what is the couple watching on telly, cooking only when the couple isnt using it. There's an element of feeling as though you are intruding into someones relationship when you live with a couple that isn't there when are sharing with friends/housemates.

For all those reasons and some of the practical ones mentioned in other posts (couples will likely be using more of the shared space, washer/dryer, etc). I think its only fair to split everything 3 ways in the situation you are describing.

Batgurl

Having lived as a single person with a couple, and also as one half of a couple sharing with others, I politely disagree with the points above. Space is king no matter if your a single or double.

The thinking of some posters that you don't mind sharing your space when your in a relationship is ridiculous. Everyone needs personal space. A couple sacrifices half the wardrobe space (quite the sacrifice for a woman lol), half the floor space for things like shoes and bags, half the bathroom space for things like toiletries. They do this though because their rent is slightly cheaper.

If you think otherwise you've clearly never lived with a spouse or partner. Or maybe I've just been in a horrible dysfunctional relationship where I haven't fully committed to my partner so not wanting to pick up his day-old socks and underpants or listen to his snores when he's been out is abnormal!?!

Batgurl

Ps - your common spaces argument is moot. If you were living with two singles they'd likely want to each make seperate dinners so you'd be waiting twice as long, they'd be washing two sets of bed sheets instead of one so twice as much washing and drying and as for taking over the tv room. If you can't stand up for yourself in a house share, that's your issue. I've never experienced that problem.