Views on proposed cohabitation rights changes and the opt-out model

I oppose this as someone who has actively chosen not to marry. I have no desire to lose half my pension and savings in a separation.
Nobody made the decision to ' sacrifice' a career in our relationship. This proposal only serves to disadvantage me. If I wanted to share finances in the event of a split, id have married.

I fully understand your fury. I am also furious. Why should people have this forced on them when they have made their own arrangements. How dare this government take the choice away from people. I will NEVER vote for Labour ever again if this comes to pass. There should be protests about this. It’s enforced marriage rights. They can bleat on all they like about marriage rights being different, but there will not be much difference at all from the proposals I’ve seen. This is nothing more than a glorified payday for the lawyers and law firms. This is NOTHING to do with protecting vulnerable women at all. In fact, many women will be even more vulnerable if this bill goes through. It will have many unintended consequences.

As an older co-habiting couple with adult children from our previous relationships/marriages and no shared off spring we have deliberately made a choice not to marry in order to keep our finances separate.
Partner has his own business and 2 properties. We cohabit in "my" property.

Yes we have wills etc but marriage and civil partnerships are an option already giving financial security if that's what people want.

Im furious about this. More advertising and educating needs to be done so its common knowledge that common law relationships dont have the financial security. Marriage is so much more than a piece of paper.

You can marry for under £100 quid, it doesnt have to be a big day with top hats and tails of that's not what people want.

Then make the choice not to have the child in the first place

And the financial responsibility that each parent has for their child can be dealt with through the CMS if needed. People don’t become responsible for other adults simply by conceiving a child.

@rwalker both the civil partnership and marriage requires the other party to agree. sometimes they simply refuse and leave a person in the lurch often with a child involved.

I’ve no idea why you are taking such an aggressive tone with me.

But if as you say neither partner is left vulnerable by taking on more of the childcare while the other progresses their career then it won’t make a difference to them.

needs and sharing principles work pretty well in financial remedies- you’re expected to get a job even if you’ve been a sahp during the marriage (I was previously a sahm, now have a ft job). I think it’s fair enough when people have a child to consider them as a family unit. I disagree that unmarried couples without joint children should be included.

The survey makes it impossible to differentiate answers between marriage and cohabitation. I gave up trying to fill it in.

My approach therefore will be to avoid cohabitation absolutely. Opting out is no protection if the govt thinks they can change the law to suit themselves, which the format of this survey suggests.

My ds is leaving for university in a few weeks and I had been looking forward to the possibility of a new relationship. At least now I am clear what the basis of that relationship must be.

You know young women out earn young men, don’t you?
I hope you know women own more property too.

Among unmarried couples I know it is almost universal the woman earns more and is much more likely to be the home owner. You seem to be assuming the we live in the 1970s.

I know one couple where we have long worried about her as the guy is basically useless, he stopped working consistently as he couldn’t find anything “of a high enough standard” so her very good career keeps them, as they live in her flat (she purchased with a lot of help from her parents). Her protection has been that she wouldn’t marry him so was safe, under these changes she is really exposed.

They basically split childcare, and if he were to be accessed for “need” she would get screwed. If these rules come in it may mean she shod kick him out before these changes come in. But that is unlikely to happen. He has previously had good jobs but chose not to bother keeping going once he was effectively “kept” and now the government will give him guarantees he shouldn’t be entitled too.

There is nothing fair about this ridiculous proposal.

Women can protect themselves via the free contraception they have access to. No one is forced to have children with someone that won’t marry them. If people want the protection of marriage they can get married, where there are safeguards in place to ensure both people understand what it means and want it.

I don’t trust that people will be able to opt out easily, or for free, or even that the government will ensure that everyone who will be at risk from this knows they need to opt out. And people
should be allowed to opt out without the consent of their partner. It makes no sense when the problem that exists could be solved by enabling the CMS to do its job.

There are lots of reasons why this may happen though - unplanned pregnancy, domestic abuse, coercive control, don’t get round to it etc. this leaves woman and children vulnerable and the state picks up the tab through universal credit. CMS is an absolute joke.

I think the needs approach works well though financial remedies and this should be available for unmarried women too.

the protection is already there if you take some responsibility for yourself and get married or civil partnership

I agree that protection is needed for unmarried women with children, I don’t understand why it’s needed for others and it seems like a huge state over reach. When you have children that is the point where one partner often makes a career or financial sacrifice for the joint children resulting in increased vulnerability. I don’t see why in a partnership involving two independent adults the one earning less needs to be compensated by the higher earner. There is no joint undertaking (ie children) which would result in that and therefore require compensation - only personal choices.

I think it’s quite presumptive that a full financial disclosure is required to opt out too. Some partners don’t share finances or have that level of openness, which is up to them! Again, without children then there is no need to share finances if that doesn’t suit the individuals. It seems insane that the state can mandate this.

“regulations around common-law relationships seems to work fine in canada”

You obviously know different Canadians to me. I have heard complaints about it. Not that ultimately it mattered as they all eventually got married, however there was the concern about needing to make decisions sooner than they need to made. If you were living with someone, have any assets and are not sure it will go the distance you are better off breaking up before the 2 year (or 3 year in some locations) mark. Not even it is a bad relationship, just you aren’t certain it is for life.

It is particularly messy when family businesses were involved, even if there was the “eventually you could probably win a court” the risk of needing to fight it was a concern.

If l you look it US states there have been loads who had common law marriage and abolished it because it was such a pain in the back side.

From the proposals, having a codified approach to a few things would be an improvement, but that doesn’t need this change. Also, the inheritance tax exemption would make sense, but that is easily fixed by a change in a budget.

Most of the “problems” are claims about people not understanding basic ideas, like being married means something or it is good to get a will. These don’t need layers of law to address.

regulations around common-law relationships seems to work fine in canada, and it's really beneficial when the relationship has some abusive elements.
sadly on mn you read so many posts about women trapped in abusive relationships, unwed as the man delays the formalization despite children.
long ago the engagement ring was worth money, here on mn people go on that the ring is a symbol of the sentiment not the cash value...and long ago men could be charged with breech of promise (abolished in 1970).

Maybe womwn need to use their brains more and dont let men make decisions for them? If couples want security get married it's not rocket science

It’s ridiculous.
Couples can have marriage or civil partnerships if they want. If they choose not to then they don’t have have the rights and protections. Very simple.

There’s probably not that long left for the consultation, so please fill this in if you feel strongly about it. I hope they take on board what must be some very strong opposition to these proposals.

I agree. People need to start taking some personal responsibility for this stuff.

I really don’t see the need anyone has the ability to get these rights by marriage or civil partnership
if you chose not to go down that route then it’s your own fault

I wonder what numpty came up with this ridiculous idea. Let’s tackle maintenance. No time needs to be wasted on something which can already be sorted easily by marriage / civil partnership/ making a will. If dh dies before for me, I have absolutely no wish to marry again, I don’t necessarily want to be celibate or on my own, but I have no wish to be in a ‘formal’ relationship. This would have been disastrous for my mum in law, who was widowed very young, once her dc were adults she found herself a partner, they lived together very happily for 15 years, but she made it very clear from the outset her house would be sold on her death and all monies, once all debts were cleared, would be split equally among her children, as she knew if she died first her partner would very likely want to marry, meaning a complete stranger could end up inheriting her home.

I agree the proposed law is ridiculous. We have also been together for many years and have two children and we have consciously decided not to marry for these reasons. I would hate all my savings to go to him if I die, he then marries someone else and my kids could end up with nothing. Laws are ridiculous and outdated, they must change. Default law should be that your children (or next of kin) inherit at least 50% of your estate and the other 50% then ok maybe your partner/husband. But not all £322k to a partner.

And everyone should be allowed the same tax free allowance whether married or not, but that is a different issue

A very biased report from the BBC. They’ve barely mentioned any of the pitfalls. There are already several options to protect unmarried partners, but people who have consciously chosen to keep finances separate should NOT have this forced on them as a default and certainly should NOT have to opt out.

FYI you've been quoted by the BBC:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2vx4dvgzno

@Supersimkin7
@LlynTegid

The issue of the crapness of the CMS is a totally different point form this consultation. It was nodded through years ago based upon “good intentions” and produced a mess.

I have heard horror stories on both sides of payer and payee, much of its work could be simplified by making more use of HMRC records for assessments of income (particularly the self employed and business owners) and a simplified system for collection on the back of that.

But don’t confuse the CMS issue with this issue.