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 should be 10-20 years.

I don't - I think it should be 6 months; or 3 years; or 11.5621547 years; or 40 years; or never... or however long after you have actively chosen to get married, IF you have actively chosen to get married.

If we bring in forced marriage in the UK, we can instantly say Goodbye to ever claiming the higher moral ground over any other countries that may tend towards the non-western, illiberal, or non human rights-respecting way of doing things - as we've taken a big step towards aligning our own moral codes with them.

Imagine us daring to tell other countries that we strongly disagree with their stance in allowing a man from legally marrying 4 wives at once - all of their own free will - if we have a government that dictates and forces marriage against people's active will.

It's outrageous to deliberately take away the basic rights from one group of adults just because another group of adults don't bother to exercise theirs. The right to a relationship on their own terms and not to be effectively restricted from living in their own home with whomever they choose?

Why is it supposedly so extremely difficult for the one group to opt in to marriage, that the government need to treat them like naive children automatically marry them off; but apparently it's a simple, straightforward, morally just procedure to expect others to be fully functioning grown-ups and to opt out of it?

Nope. It’s a terrible idea. Marriage or civil partnership mean that 2 people have consented To be financially entwined.

i think concentrating on collecting child support from loser man childs would be a better idea

But people keep what they legally own NOW.

They wouldn’t be bringing this law in if it did not change things.

Presumably a woman owning a house whose previously renting partner moves in with her, will find her BF stakes a claim on her home as his ‘defined need’ is he has no home.

Just to say that this is not what’s being proposed at all. It would allow someone to claim only if they had suffered an economic disadvantage as a result of making contributions to the relationship, eg giving up your job to care for joint kids. It would be nowhere near as generous as the provision is for married couples. A lodger also can’t just claim they were in a relationship with someone who’s died as there would need to be evidence of this, eg from family and friends who knew them as a couple. Also cohabitants have alteady been able to make claims under the inheritance act for many many years and the world hasn’t ended and people still make wills.

There's an awful lot of bollocks spouted on here about prenups and putting properties 'in trust'. This change is only going to add to the confusion imo, and I do wonder who will benefit other than predatory 'financial advisors'.

The consultation seems to start from the POV that it’s a good thing, just needs the details tweaking. How did you answer the questions to indicate you disagree with the principle?

There is a civil partnership if people don't want to get married isn't that enough? Cohabiting is so vague, having sex? Sharing a house? Children together? See each other daily but live in their own homes some of the time? I have no idea how they would define it or police it.

The detail will be important.

Marriage rates in the UK have been steadily declining for decades. This leaves a lot of unmarried partners, in particular women, very vulnerable.

For example take a couple cohabiting for 20 years. Woman wants to marry- Man doesn’t. His career progresses so he is earning £100k+. She works part time in a lower paid role to facilitate childcare and to support his freedom to pursue his career, enabling business travel, long hours when needed etc . They end up in a heavily extended property now worth say £800k which is in his name as he had bought it before they met, and he has say £100k in isas built up annually , say he has £ 1million in his work pension. As things stand at the moment, this woman (unmarried and not in a civil partnership) has no legal rights to the property, isa’s or pensions. Despite the common myth, there is no such thing as a "common law marriage," no matter how long you live together.

With appropriate safeguards to protect wealth accrued before the relationship started then surely some cohabitation legislation could protect those couples where one sacrifices their career for family life and they build assets together?

I have mixed feelings on this...

I think if the couple have children then it's right the parents have a duty to share finances/property in such a way as to provide adequately for the children and main carer after separation, other than just via child maintenance.

It's not fair for anyone (including tax payers) if one partner has significant assets and the other is left claiming benefits for themself and their children.

This is exactly how it played out for a friend in nz where they have similar laws.

I too was protected by deciding NOT to marry in uk.

compelled indeed.

There was a long thread about this on AIBU recently. I've chosen not to marry my partner, and I don't want the reform. Other than shared bills we have decided to live financially independent lives. We've been together for many many years.

We don't have children, I'm a saver and he's a spender (with multiple cars, watches, expensive hobbies, clothes, financial gifts to his adult children etc)- so he has no real savings or pension, I have a growing pot. The house is joint, so he would get half of that anyway. He's already being awkward about signing an opt out "that sounds expensive. Don't you trust me. We might as well break up now because I'm not signing one" 🙄🙄.

I've been in a physically abusive relationship in the past and felt unable to leave due to a lack of money or safety net - interestingly that bloke was piss poor too. So no, this law wouldn't have helped me then.

I don't see why I'm expected to risk my hard-earned security now, just because I've lived with someone for more than 3 years.

People who talk about a split based on "need" - what if we split in 10 years? He'll be near retirement age with no real pension (because he has spent his money on crap), does that mean he gets to take half of mine? How is that fair?

In-between marriage by stealth, and your lodger potentially inheriting if you dont have a valid will or someone to fight for your estate, this consultation is mad. If this is about religious marriage, surely the simple fix is allow other religions to do legal marriages?
However the getting more in the divorce if you claim domestic abuse is alarming too. In principle I'm for this, but it will turn the proccess into an even worse experience than it already is, some CF is always going to claim or counter claim and make the proccess even more of a punishment.

I totally agree.

Of course it’s awful when a SAHM loses everything because the house was all in her partner’s name.
It will also be awful if that same woman then has a shitty predatory partner who moves in, and after a few years is entitled to some of her assets.

Both systems would disadvantage people in different situations. But the proposed changes would also disadvantage people who are well aware of the law and would therefore choose to never live with a partner.

I think the significant financial obligations of marriage need to be actively opted into. Not passively created through time. And people need to be educated on the legal and financial implications of marrying and of not marrying.

All about money, so less benefits, less reliance on state, no what's mine will never be yours scenario. When marriage became unnecessary, it probably was a road that costs our society when things go wrong! So, nobody moves in, 2 households maintained, less family wealth. We already have a way to do as proposed, marriage, but seems the loophole of not marrying may be about to close!

I think in some circumstances it’s good, far to many people get a partner in like a rotating door one in, one out, with no thought to their children etc so this may stop that. It’s good for couples who cannot afford to get married.

But shit for widows or divorcees who purposely choose not to remarry.

But doesn’t it make it harder for unmarried women to leave abusive relationships? She can’t just kick him out (if it’s her house) and be done with it, she’ll have to consider whether he has some claim over her assets?
The saving grace for my friend was that she never married her abusive partner.

It’s much more common for the woman to be living in a house owned by her abuser than the other way around. Usually abuse is accompanied by an economic imbalance.

Also it’s very unlikely that the abuser would be able to claim anything unless he gave up his job to do childcare or something.

It might be ‘more common’ but it’s not ‘always’, so these proposals will make a lot of women who have been protecting themselves carefully till now much more vulnerable. Not good. Not good at all.

I disagree with this concept.
In every case where one of my friends were preyed on by an abusive liar (male or female) they had Genuine Reasons why they couldn’t get a job and had to cocklodge/fannylodge. Usually the homeowner wouldn’t see through it for three or four years. No children involved. In the cases where they were married, my hardworking friends lost half their houses. In the cases where they were not married, the cocklodger/fannylodger had to leave eventually. In those cases they did end up on benefits, but these were people who were never going to work or own a house anyway and if they got half the house, they very likely would have pissed it up a wall on cars etc so they could claim benefits again. Every single one of these cocklodger/fannylodgers will tell you they were in an abusive relationship when they were the abusive one.

We know some people are expert cock/fannylodgers and terminally workshy. We know there are men out there purposely fudging their earnings or staying underemployed to avoid paying child maintenance. Men and women who target older people and lovebomb them for financial gain just got a free pass to even more financial gain. Why should individual hard working people be subjected to losing their property to reduce the benefits bill? The only time this should apply is in the case of children being involved. And absolutely not in the case of inheritance. Kids should always inherit if there is no will.

And given the low public appetite for this, where did Labour get this idea and why do they seem so bent on pushing it through? Who is lobbying so hard for this?

It’s crazy!!!!

I haven't seen any report or data behind this claim, but would be interested if anyone has a source.

If it's true, I wonder how much of it is actually an artefact of who manages to leave quickly vs. who doesn't, rather than who experiences abuse in the first place. If you've got savings/safety nets you can probably get out faster, so the abuse doesn't carry on as long or get documented in the same way. If that's the case it would strengthen the case to improve safety nets for all abuse victims, not just those who are living with people who have assets (which goes back to other comments on this thread about the consultation just changing who is vulnerable, rather then removing vulnerability).

Plus the consultation itself says the new rules would apply to all cohabiting couples (after 3 years), not just those with children so your point about "very unlikely the abuser would be able to claim anything" doesn't necessarily feel true.

I think it's preposterous and cocklodgers charter basically.

Vulnerable women who are dating a guy who's abusive will have to give half their house to this fella even though they're not in a legal partnership?! And you're expected to engage a solicitor in order to be able to have a casual non legally binding monogamous relationship!

You opt in to share your shit when marrying. You shouldn't have to opt out by employing a lawyer every time you start sleeping with someone?!

Generally the reform will benefit women rather than men. Very few men will be able to to show that they have suffered an economic disadvantage from the relationship unless they were a SAHD (in which case that’s fair enough that they should get something). But I think Mumsnet is a bit skewed on this as it’s mainly used by home-owning relatively high earning women who do have assets and see this as a threat to those assets. They see the typical scenario as a penniless man moving into their home whereas this is statistically quite unusual given the gender pay gap and unequal split of childcare. The current law allows men to massively exploit women’s caregiving work with no chance for them to get anything when the relationship ends.

I imagine it's to protect people who are cohabiting but never marry because "who needs a big ceremony to prove we love each other" or "it's just a piece of paper" and then get skrewed.

It's the wrong approach though. What they should be doing is really publicising that "common law marriage" is not a real thing, that you are hurting yourself if you are putting money into a house without being on the mortgage. And publicise the tax implications. There will still be people who put themselves at a disadvantage. But while I have sympathy for them, it's not right to fir government policy around quirky decisions.

But if you look at some threads on here some women already think they have legal protections if cohabiting long term with someone. There needs to be more information out there rather than a law change

I agree.
And I don't think women are stupid for getting themselves into that situation. Often there's a trust there, you tend to trust the people you are spending your life with not to take advantage.

But its not the right approach. Maybe a government information campaign to encourage people to get married if they need legal protection (eg if having kids, if they are paying household expenses but not on the mortgage). It wouldn't need to be something which emphasized the Christian/morality side of it or anything. Just a "formalising your relationship at the registry office only costs X amount here is an easy link to the paperwork needed". Actually making it cheaper and easier to do it would also work.

Or, introduce a separate "civil union" that isn't officially marriage but is knowingly entered into by both parties. That would mean people genuinely put of by the baggage of marriage could opt (cheaply) into a scheme which has the most important legal protections. And the "I love you babe, we don't need a ceremony to prove that." Types would have no excuse. Especially if it's cheap to get.

It's not just bad partners either. There are tax and inheritance implications most people don't think through but should.