Coercive control and cohabitees’ rights to property - Maria Wheeler and Labour

I wouldn’t be in the least bit surprised.

Similarly, they aren’t going to sort out the child maintenance situation.

"The problems that arise when women do that and leave themselves hugely vulnerable if the relationship breaks down, should be addressed through avenues such as the welfare system."

I imagine that:s one reason the Labour party are so keen on this idea - they know they won't be able to find the money to increase welfare spending as well as afford the other spending plans they have .

Well let’s blame Scottish Labour too.

Regardless, it’s all a horrible idea.

If people want to co-own stuff, they can do so by actively choosing to enter into some sort of legal contract about it.

Otherwise, frankly, people moving in to houses their partner owns but they don’t, should recognise that they are basically lodgers. Even if they have children with that partner.

The problems that arise when women do that and leave themselves hugely vulnerable if the relationship breaks down, should be addressed through avenues such as the welfare system.

And just because Scotland has done something stupid, doesn’t mean the rest of the UK should follow. This is probably yet another example of the SNP pretending it’s make Scotland into a progressive utopia.

Cohabitants gained these rights in Scots law in 2006. The first SNP government was from 2007. This law was passed by a hung parliament under a Labour First Minister.

It's true, however, that looking at law reform proposals that have come out in more recent years in Scotland (in regards to potential changes to succession law), that there is a push to grant rights to cohabitants and to reduce the rights of children to automatically succeed to (part of) the estate. Children in Scotland have legal rights to a share in a parent's estate (although the spouse has also prior rights which given the size of many estates, may essentially exhaust the estate).

Yes. But a divorce settlement is a court order. To meet the terms of that court order the house may have to be sold, remortgaged or it’s ownership transferred.

And just because Scotland has done something stupid, doesn’t mean the rest of the UK should follow. This is probably yet another example of the SNP pretending it’s make Scotland into a progressive utopia. But the reality is somewhat removed from that.

Another reason not to consider moving back home.

What would the bank have to say? What the cohabitant would acquire is a personal right against the other cohabitant, not in itself a real right over the property.

The ownership of property might be affected by marriage if it becomes a matrimonial home, but the bank cannot on the basis of granting you a loan and getting a subordinate real right in return (by granting the mortgage) control whether you do or do not marry, even though rights might arise in that circumstance.

Check out Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006 - art. 28 ('Financial provision where cohabitation ends otherwise than by death')

(2)On the application of a cohabitant (the “applicant”), the appropriate court may, after having regard to the matters mentioned in subsection (3)—

(a)make an order requiring the other cohabitant (the “defender”) to pay a capital sum of an amount specified in the order to the applicant;

(b)make an order requiring the defender to pay such amount as may be specified in the order in respect of any economic burden of caring, after the end of the cohabitation, for a child of whom the cohabitants are the parents;

(c)make such interim order as it thinks fit.

(3)Those matters are—

(a)whether (and, if so, to what extent) the defender has derived economic advantage from contributions made by the applicant; and

(b)whether (and, if so, to what extent) the applicant has suffered economic disadvantage in the interests of—

(i)the defender; or

(ii)any relevant child.

What happens when a couple divorce where the mortgage is in one spouse's name only?

Doesn't the spouse not named on the mortgage have an interest in the property by virtue of the marriage?

I would hope the banks may have something to say with people not named on the mortgage accruing financial interest in a property by time served.

Politicians might actually listen to them, after all. Not to us women.

It is incredibly simple, you choose to cohabit without a financial arrangement you understand your rights to your home are shared.

That's quite a sinister statement to make. Especially in context of a massive housing shortage.

Also where does this stand with regard to mortgage contracts? Can someone claim they own 50% of your property and automatically be named on your mortgage? Will they apply to the Land Registry? What evidence will be needed?

Eyewateringly stupid idea.

why should this automatically be the case

Quite.

Essentially it's the government saying if you want to be in a relationship then tough tits, you're married. It's a crazy overreach into your private life.

Once they've interfered like this and forced people into contracts, what else will they do? I daren't think.

It is incredibly simple, you choose to cohabit without a financial arrangement you understand your rights to your home are shared.

why should this automatically be the case.

choosing to live together doesn’t mean you’re choosing to be financially interdependent. Should not automatically follow.

sharing your home is not the same as sharing the rights to that home.

or should lodgers accrue rights too?

*It is incredibly simple, you choose to cohabit without a financial arrangement you understand your rights to your home are shared.

I am horrified by so many, usually women, who invest their time, careers, money into relationships and conveniently men turn round and claim they are too ‘ constrained’ by marriage but have had women happily give them children, contribute financially, mentally, emotionally and physically but when the relationship breaks down she receives nothing and the children inevitably suffer the instability of rentals while he moves on, it is totally immoral.*

And if they don't have children? What if we have a single mother with a child, who has a house or a flat. After a time she gets into a new relationship, after a time her new partner moves in. Some time later they break up. Why should this woman lose a share of her house, so that she has to sell, and she and her children have to 'inevitably suffer the instability of rentals' while her partner moves on, now richer by the share of the house?

It is incredibly simple, you choose to cohabit without a financial arrangement you understand your rights to your home are shared.

I am horrified by so many, usually women, who invest their time, careers, money into relationships and conveniently men turn round and claim they are too ‘ constrained’ by marriage but have had women happily give them children, contribute financially, mentally, emotionally and physically but when the relationship breaks down she receives nothing and the children inevitably suffer the instability of rentals while he moves on, it is totally immoral.

My own partner of twenty years, had, when we got together just paid out a partner of three years. They Shared a property, she had contributed towards caring for it, maintaining things while he was out at work and she got a fair payout owing to NZ property law, she couldn’t contribute towards the deposit or mortgage financially but she did other things. No she wasn’t on the mortgage but they had lived together long enough. Fair and proper, he knew the law and so did she.

Anything that stops the insecurity of housing that so many women and children face, from the laws in the UK that are antiquated and resoundingly only support marriage ( which is imo a broken institution which so many turn their backs on, so why bother in the first place?).

I say this as someone who lives in a house in solely her name, knowing if we split up he would have a claim.

the answer to a problem where some people not understanding that configuring does not give the legal protections/obligations of marriage is not to sneak those obligations on cohabiting people.

Legal contracts should be intentionally entered in to. The idea that you can accrue a common law spouse is unfair and takes the choice away.

It’s also really unfair to many women. Women are not all hapless dependents on men, or victims, or any of the other things these kind of weirdly paternalistic policy ideas seem to be premised on.

Nor is it the case that cohabiting without marriage inherently makes women vulnerable. For women who maintain their careers (especially if they’re the higher earner), not being married may be advantageous. Similarly for women who came to the relationship with their own assets. Being married may be a truly terrible idea for them.

Having children with someone does not need to mean that you have to be entirely financially interdependent. Issues can (and do) arise when one partner - disproportionately the woman - reduces their financial independence by going part time, becoming a SAHM, taking a lower paid job, and so on. Marriage is a contract that may be important for women choosing to do this.

But it is not necessarily wrong for a couple to decide they want to maintain financial independence even if they are living together and raising children together - so long as no one is tricking anyone else.

The problem where some women think having children creates a kind of common law marriage so they make themselves financially dependent on a man who has no legal obligations towards them may well be exacerbated by policies like this. Or the problem where they believe a ‘jam tomorrow’ engagement ring does the same. Sure, it might mean they accrue some claim on the equity in the house, but that’s still not equivalent to a marriage contract (which encompasses so much more).

Women in these situations may believe they are adequately ‘protected’, when they very much are not. Problematic men are likely to choose to ensure their assets - pensions, personal savings, investments - are beyond the reach of this law, while ensuring that the equity in the house remains minimal to reduce their financial risk in cohabiting.

This is the sort of policy intervention that may be relatively easy to achieve in practice, but it fundamentally misunderstands the problem so it cannot possibly solve it. Instead it creates a new set of problems to go along with it.

The deep set cultural problems of patriarchy mean than women are generally disproportionately disadvantaged in both directions.

@Heelenahandbasket I don’t think my post is confused. My main point is that marriage is based on a written contract. There are administrative hurdles you have to jump through. Cohabiting … starts with a toothbrush and then all of a sudden the ‘visits’ get longer and facts are established on the ground.

If you get divorced (rather than split after cohabiting) you might be able to get your ex to pay some maintenance, esp. if you sacrificed your career to make a home/raise kids. Not the case with cohabiting which is why, if a dear friend who has children with her male partner asked me if she should get married I would say yes. Unless he’s the one who takes on a greater share of domestic duties. Of course that’s still unusual.

I’m not really interested in ‘ideas we should move away from’ as I’m not the nation’s educator. I think legislation should be based on the way things are, not as they ought to be.

It is a terrible idea for England and yet another reason to vote Conservative.

There is already education at school etc about marriage. It’s silly to think women or men are not getting married because they don’t know what it means. Often it’s because they don’t want to get married. Or their partner doesn’t want to marry them.

This Labour Party initiative is predicated on the assumption that some people (often women) are left without financial protections when their relationships break down.

Are you saying that most people are fully aware of these risks and are making an informed choice to cohabit rather than marry?

If so, there's no need for Labour to have any position at all on this.

There is already education at school etc about marriage. It’s silly to think women or men are not getting married because they don’t know what it means. Often it’s because they don’t want to get married. Or their partner doesn’t want to marry them.

*How?

The report basically made it clear that was no way to make an agreement to protect yourself from this marriage by stealth nonsense. The court can just decide it’s unfair.*

If the time limit is two years, you move out after one year and eleven months so that the clock can reset😉the problem might be how serious the 'move out' has to be before it could be accepted and how long a break would be accepted. Of course, an encumbrance in practice.

Your post is confused. You think women should get married for financial benefits. Yet you would deny these to unmarried women because it “undermines marriage”?

I personally don’t agree with a cohabitee being able to claim your assets. I was better off not being married (as I was the party with the most assets). But of course that’s not the case for all women but nor are women helpless to provide for themselves.

But tbh why are women with children impoverished because they aren’t married? We need a proper child maintenance system- men’s obligations to support their children should not be dependent on being married to their mother. We should move away from the idea that women need to marry well in order to financially survive and emphasize financial self reliance.

Good comment under The Times article on this: "You don't solve ignorance of the law by introducing more laws."

I agree it would be better to educate children/teenagers about exactly what getting married means, in legal terms. Especially that agreeing you will get married eventually is not the same as actually being married.

Her comment makes no sense anyway as the same law will apply to women and men.

yes. It’s a cocklodger’s charter!

How?

The report basically made it clear that was no way to make an agreement to protect yourself from this marriage by stealth nonsense. The court can just decide it’s unfair.

Making cohabitation financially risky for women with assets is not a good outcome for anyone.

People should be able to live together without taking on the obligations of marriage. Maybe adults should all recognise that unless you are married, you literally only own the things that are yours. If you are not named on the deeds of a house, it is not yours.

If you choose to live in a house you don’t own… you need to recognise that you live in a house you don’t own and make decisions accordingly.

Proper access to socially-subsidised housing, childcare and help in finding employment are all much better ways to help unmarried women in terrible relationships.

"[Thornberry] said it was “time we reviewed this issue in England and Wales, just as it has been in New Zealand, Scotland and Ireland”. She added: “No woman should be forced to get married or stay in an unhappy relationship just to avoid being put out on the street.”

That's Labour's view of women. Poor unfortunate victims with nary a penny to their name. Waiting for the state to come and save them from their bad decisions.

Her comment makes no sense anyway as the same law will apply to women and men.