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

This is a ridiculous idea, it gets pushed every few years and normally governments are sensible enough to refuse it.

People end up having a more complex relationship because they didn’t employ lawyers to stop them getting in to the mess. Imagine having to go through a psudo-divorce because you lived with someone for 3 years and a day.

If people want to be legally bound then a marriage or civil partnership is less than £200, what will it cost to draft a cohabitation agreement to not end up in a quazi-marriage? According to the consultation you both will need independent solicitors, so two lots of legal fees?

Marriage laws are already am mess because people tack on “but what about this obscure case” to cater for those who don’t just do the simple thing. This is adding endless complexity to life. A cynic would point out the body who represent divorce lawyers have been pushing for this for years…

I agree, OP. If the new laws are essentially meant to get women and DC off welfare (they are, the 🇬🇧’s exceptionally bad in this area) then write them with that aim in mind.

The other option is tell people to marry-with-pre-nups that are on their to becoming legally binding. Prenups have existed since 1200 in this country to protect women.

A few problems consultation not tackled:

Cohabitation - it’s bloody easy to claim
you don’t, partic if your parents can say they house you, you work away or you’ve got family and property abroad. Or if the relationship’s going badly and you’re off every 5 min and/or living with another partner.

Stepchildren - What makes one? What makes a step-parent? How many can you have?

We all know kids who are brought up under one roof in separate social classes cos their DFs vary in income. Sibling bonds need strengthening in society, not weakening.

Intestacy proposals: Anyone vaguely aware of the UK’s major social changes in the last 30 years?

The biggest are the huge rise in dementia/huge rise property prices/mega rise in will challenges.

Proposals team haven’t heard a word.

What could possibly go wrong?

They could start by enforcing child maintenance laws.

🇬🇧 ‘s the last refuge of the deadbeat dad - you don’t get away with it in Europe. 50:50 residency and £, always monitored and enforced.

I think it’s a dreadful idea. I have completed the questionnaire as part of the consultation and I have actually stated on several questions that they are hard to decipher. There are already steps people can take to leave assets to an unmarried partner (marriage, civil partnership or will). The suggestion that should ‘opt out’ to protect assets is absurd. I am divorced. If I ever meet anyone else, this would absolutely put me off moving in with them. I would want my children to get my assets on my death. I also wouldn’t want my assets at risk during my lifetime as I’ve worked so hard for what I have. Aside from this, my mum died when I was relatively young. My father met someone a year or so after. They now live together but have never married. He has made a will to ensure she gets to live in the property until she dies (if he dies first), after which it goes to me. The house was pretty much paid off when she moved in. He wants the house to go to me and my mum would have wanted this too. Why should people have to ‘opt out’ to protect their assets! I hope people fight against this and complete the questionnaire as part of the consultation.

My DP wastes so much money despite me telling him he should start saving, his financial immaturity should be his issue and not mine.

If we both wanted to marry we would.

Excellent post.

Getting married, formalising a civil partnership or just making proper wills addresses this problem. There are several ways to make sure partners can protect each other without removing the option of living together casually and with no financial strings. People need to be educated on how to protect themselves, rather than protected from their own foolish decisions.

Cohabiting relationships with children should be treated as a marriage. The fact that they aren’t is costing the country £££ every year in benefit payments to women who have been screwed over by men who are only expected to pay the bare minimum for their children.

Marriage is a binding contract and the government should not enforce a contract on a couple. People shouldn't wander into a binding contract by living together for a while. It's a stupid idea.

The point at which women get screwed over is when they have DC. Something affording better protection to mothers would useful and also in the interests of the DC.

Two independent working adults cohabiting should be assumed to have made a positive choice not to bother with a marriage or civil partnership and the state should not assume it on their behalf.

What a batshit policy.

Are they really saying that because so many people believe the myth of the 'common law marriage' (do they?), that they will make that myth a reality rather than educate the population?

I would be one opting out or choosing to live separately from my partner if this came into effect.

But they can just make a will!

I do not see the need for this. Civil partnerships exist and if anyone in a longer term relationship refuses to get one, that’s a sign to leave the relationship.

I hope this consultation doesn’t go far. There is both marriage and civil partnerships to offer these protections as well as jointly buying a property. An individual shouldn’t be forced into this legal tying of assets if they have declined the above. At what point will this end, could opening up house equity rights extend to savings and pensions later down the line?

My partner has very different spending habits to me. We jointly owned our property and now have a fairly equal income. However I have been putting into a pension for 15 years, invest in a LISA, invest in an ISA and still have a substantial disposable income for things I enjoy such as holidays. My partner doesn’t have a pension or savings and fritters money on takeaway coffees and lunch out multiple days a week. I certainly don’t want to lose my savings and pension to someone who has the capability to also save but fritters the money away

The separation aspect is one thing but I do agree that long term partners should be considered as spouses in death. The amount of unmarried couples who get done over when one dies as it all goes to parents or kids is insane

Thanks for linking the consultation, I tried to respond but the questions are incomprehensible.

It’s really bothering me that nobody seems to be considering coercive control. I was in a financially abusive cohabiting relationship and had these rules been in place he would’ve been entitled to a lot. No checks, no safeguards. It’s a terrible idea.

I think now there is the option of civil partnerships for anyone, agree this should be taken into account.

Agree where there are children the law needs to change.

There also needs to be proper sanctions for those who won't pay maintenance, or even where they are deliberately difficult when it comes to access for their children. If you refuse to pay without acceptable grounds, be declared bankrupt perhaps, or lose your passport and driving licence until you pay up.