What do you think about proposed rights for cohabiting couples?

[CheekyPombear]

Recently I have read that the government is going to give rights to couples that live together equal rights that only married people usually have.

The proposals are if you live with someone who owns or inherits a property or money after 3 years if you split up or they die you can claim half or inherit.

That is insane. Even if your married for three years under current law its classed as short and you wouldnt get half.

There is a older gentlemen who lives with his disabled brother on my street.

Say his brother dies and he takes a younger lodger in and he dies that lodger could say she had a romantic relationship with him and claim the property?. If thats the case whats the point of making a will?.

Also there is no such thing as common law marriage thats why people who dont want to lose money or property if a relationship ends dont get married.

What does anyone else think about this?.

I think it absolutely should apply if you have children together. The generally accepted position now in society is that couples live together before marriage. And many many people already think that this is the law and common law marriage exists.

There are so many women on here who move in with their partner on that basis, having agreed that there will be a marriage, accidently fall pregnant, the man comes up with excuses about why marriage has to be delayed and then the woman sacrifices their career to do most of the child raising. Then they are left with nothing when the relationship ends or feel they have to stay in a relationship to avoid being left with nothing. Those women and their children deserve protection. I know people will say well they made a choice but so did the men involved. And the man's choice often involves deception and selfishness. If men were willing to step up and accept that their partner has contributed and end the relationship by giving their ex what they deserve there would be no need for a law change.

I also hope it makes people rethink moving in together if they can see there are consequences. That's not a decision that should be taken lightly.

My understanding is that you can opt out and so couples can choose to do so.

I find it interesting and alarming that this is not covered by any mainstream media. I only found out about this change on MN.

So millions of people might be sleepwalking into disaster without even knowing about this

ETA: It's not just inheritance, your home might be taken from you: "For example under our plans, individuals could gain access to a share of a house sale to help secure their financial future."

ETA 2: Labour are being true to themselves - they always treat other people's money like their own

It is outrageous. If people want to marry and have legal protection thst is available. If people want to cohabit then there should be no claim to property.

I've been paying my house for decades for my KIDS. They are saying if I had a partner move in for 3 years he could claim part of my house? Outrageous. This must be stopped.

I think that's what marriage is for.

I think my country has the right balance. Cohabiting partners don't have a right to the other's property but shared property must be split fairly and there are legal ways to do that just like with divorce, and it is possible for one partner to claim some compensation for the contributions they've made e.g. if one owns the house but the other has contributed to the mortgage they can claim for that. These rights kick in after 5 years or if the couple has a child together.

I live in NZ and have never heard of it being an issue with anyone. Despite what the pp said lots of people still move in together.

Another reason for me not to live with someone!

I'm a long term married so this relationship doesn't have any bearing on this but however it is a scary thought of this relationship for whatever reason ended I could loose half my house if I met a new partner granted equally at my age they would probably bring in value.
I'm a Labour voter but slowly I can see myself more and more voting for Kemi in my area it's very much conservative or labour.

F

There isn’t a lot of information on this, but I do wonder if (the sensible thing to do would be) you have to register for this online. Kind of like a probate but less paperwork. So if you are more casual or choose not to marry because of finances, you’re fine. I can see it from both sides, DP and I are not married but have a mortgage and 2 DC together. If something was to happen our parents would get our estate / income protection insurance etc. I feel like our parents would be nice enough to pass it on to whoever would be there for the kids but we all know not all families function in that way.

This is ridiculous.

I decided that getting married was very important when having dc, so I wouldn't have chosen to live with or have dc with a man who didn't want to get married.

That was our choice, to enter into a legal contract. Everyone else already has the choice available to them.

It shouldn't be something automatic or forced upon people who haven't opted in.

What exactly do they think is going to happen to the housing crisis?

If this came in I imagine most widowed spouses and blended families will be keeping two seperate houses instead of one, to protect their childrens inheritance. And many may decide against living together until they are ready for marriage level commitment.

I don't see an issue with this on the face of it.
I think the devil is in the detail. 3 years is to short, 5-10 years of cohabiting on a sliding scale would be fairer. There should be evidence of this in terms of sharing bills and other evidence of being a couple. In the case of a break up and subsequent claim, it needs to be scrutinised like a fake marriage to avoid the pitfalls.

I imagine one effect of this would be young adults choosing to stay living at home
with parents until the point of marriage and moving in with a spouse. Very old school

Even more good reason to not let a man move in with you, Cocklodgers dream this is.

I filled this consultation a while ago - absolutely flabbergasted! The only saving grace is they intend to make prenups legally binding

Women are choosing not to have children currently, soon women will be choosing not to live with men at all if this law comes in! I know it would put me off.

It is possible to have a long term committed relationship and not live together. Its becoming increasing common among 40+ post divorce people who like their own autonomy. I've been doing it for a decade. Yes its more efficient to cohabit but its not compulsory.
Habi g said that, I dont disagree that this certainly needs closer scrutiny a d the presence of shared children should be a key factor...without that there's no real reason why any adult should be beholden another if a relationship finished.

The only people that will win will be the lawyers

I'm in NZ, and this law effectively gave me half the house when ex and I split. He had paid more into the house (I was SAHM and had worked part time so had obviously paid less) and this law recognised, I guess, that I'd put 'other' unpaid work in (raising kids) so it stopped me getting shafted when the house was sold. So it does mainly protect SAHM's and lower income earners in a nasty split.

However, I can see it is a total double edged for others - My mothers dodery friend has a 'gentlemen friend' who seems to live at her house - although she denies they're in any sort of relationship. I keep warning her to watch out cos he could try and claim half her house one day,

I wonder if at the same time the government would apply the inheritance tax rules on pensions "as if you were married" and enable more to be passed on without them taking a huge slice? I suspect not. You would be all but married when it comes to rights and what you're entitled to in the event that you split up, but most definitely not married when incomes to owing money to the government. Winner winner dog's dinner...

I did spot that it says
"Legal ownership as a starting point: each person keeps what they legally own and the court will depart from this only where required to meet defined needs. There is no default 50:50 split, as the sharing principle would not apply to cohabitants."

That seems somewhat reassuring at least.

I have a feeling this isn't about making things fair, it's about relieving the welfare burden. The low earner in a relationship won't be on the doorstep of emergency housing or putting in a UC claim if their ex partner can foot the bill.

Do you genuinely not realise that Scotland is part of the UK?

Or did you mean it’s England and Wales only? Scotland does have different laws re inheritance etc.

The government should instead be including cohabiting pros/cons in their life education lessons (can't remember the initials used - PHSE?) so (let's be honest it is mostly) women don't go along with cohabiting, leaving themselves financially vulnerable.
Knowing whether a marriage contract suits your situation is key. If you need one, and a man won't oblige, then go elsewhere.

But you are choosing NOT to protect your inheritance. That is your choice.

I don’t see why the state should step in to ‘protect’ you from your free choice.

I completely disagree with this proposal. Marriage and civil partnerships exists if people want a financial partnership with another person.

Not marrying exists if you don’t. The state should not force people into financial agreements they have not signed ( except for child maintenance as the child takes priority there and there is an implied agreement that if you have a kid, you are obliged to support it).