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?.

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.

This already exists.

Also I can guarantee the controlling types/the types to not marry their partner so as to avoid any risk to themselves while benefitting from someone looking after the kids/paying expenses etc. Those types would find a way to work around the new law anyway. There's always loopholes. Eg engineering a break up after every 2 1/2 years so the partner leaves home and then initiating a reconciliation later so the clock resets.
The women (or men) most in need of protection are the ones being deliberately strung along. And the stringing along will continue by other means.

For what it's worth (I know people may not have time to read other long threads, but just for anybody who is interested) here are the two recent threads discussing this:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5538910-consultation-on-unmarried-couples-sharing-assets-when-they-break-up

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5539221-unmarried-couples-to-gain-property-rights-and-possible-wider-implications

It’s completely stupid and will surely penalise those who have remained unmarried on purpose.
There are already several ways couples could have rights without getting married, if they choose not to that’s at their own risk surely?

Shit. I didn't know that.** And I thought I was quite clued up on the law. That's embarrassing. But either I'm particularly ignorant (entirely possible) or this could be a LOT more publicised. Why don't they do that?

**Actually I do vague remember it as an option for gay couples as a hangover from before gay marriage was legal. I didn't realise it was now open to heterosexual couples too.

Tackle the scandal of unpaid and under-paid child maintenance.
💯this

I think it's ridiculous. I have a family member who's been with their partner for 20+ years. Partner has refused to contribute to the house financially. Family member owed house for 20 yrs prior to being with partner. So they agreed family member would pay for the house and it remain theirs.
to think the partner could have a claim on the house they they have refused to contribute to is ridiculous!

The problem is that people are assuming that couples think with one mind. They don’t. There are a few that jointly choose not to marry. These people could opt out of a future scheme because the law will provide for these.
Where it will protect is for the large number of women who are promised marriage by men which then doesn’t materialise and who go ahead and have children (and it’s very easy to say to a 36 year old woman to not get pregnant when she feels that this is the only chance she will have at a family). Currently men are allowed to build families and walk away with all the assets and only owe child support. I personally wouldn’t support that but everyone is different.

As for the cocklodger scenario: you have to show economic disadvantage that is relationship generated. A cocklodger won’t be able to show that. There is no suggestion that a man who moves in with a woman would ever get half her house just because he lives with her. There is also the option of an opt-out.

And if it’s so simple to say to women “don’t have kids without getting married” why can’t we also say to home-owning women “don’t live together unless you’ve got a cohabitation contract”? Why is it only okay in the first scenario?

On what basis would they have a claim? Have they done work on the house or given up a job to care for joint children? If not, they wouldn’t have a claim even if the law was changed.
And they probably haven’t been contributing because they’ve been told they wouldn’t get anything. Seems quite sensible to me.

It’s just beyond ridiculous to take away a persons autonomy and force them to opt out of someone because someone else doesn’t opt into the protection of marriage for whatever reason. It’s a complete limit on freedom.
If you want the protection of marriage then get married, if you aren’t religious you can have a civil marriage or a civil partnership.
To take away the independence of an unmarried couple because another woman might want to be married and his husband doesn’t is insanity and bordering on an overarching religious leaning state where women can’t decide things for themselves.

And if it’s so simple to say to women “don’t have kids without getting married” why can’t we also say to home-owning women “don’t live together unless you’ve got a cohabitation contract”? Why is it only okay in the first scenario?
Because no contract should be the default, living together should not merge any rights together other than the rental or mortgage agreement if a couple chooses that.

There’s not an awful lot that the USA gets right IMO, but throwing those who don’t pay their child support into jail and making an example of ‘deadbeat dads’ is one of them.

Cohabitants under current law cannot inherit if their partner dies they are not entitled to a bean.

The deceased persons family or if no family it goes to the state.

You keep saying you’d have to show an economic disadvantage generated by the relationship. Are you talking about another country? Because the consultation documents from the Uk gov specifically says that is not what will be necessary.

“The Government is aware that other jurisdictions apply, and the Law Commission proposed in its 2007 report, a “compensation” based approach when determining how assets should be divided on separation. This approach would give the court the objective of compensating disadvantage suffered by one partner for the benefit of the other as a result of decisions arising from their relationship. However, the Government has decided against pursuing this approach. Its primary concern is that a compensation model does not reliably ensure that needs, particularly those of children, are met.”

It goes on to say that the courts should consider earning potential and “financial resources of each individual” when deciding.

I think its fucking stupid.

Nor should they though, if someone hadn’t made provision for a girlfriend or boyfriend in their will or through joint home ownership they shouldn’t have any claim on it after passing, and certainly not at the expense of living family like children.

There are many ways someone can direct inheritance to someone if they wish, there is zero need for the state to assume.

NZ has had similar laws for decades and I know several women who have lost $$$$$ to what would be called on MN "cocklodgers".

Its interesting how so many laws that set out to support women backfire on them.

Isn't it interesting that in the days when women are LESS likely to marry and MORE likely to own property, this "forced share of assets" legislation materialises?

I am opposed.

And this is a really important point in the face of a significant housing crisis. People will be much more likely to retain two houses where they would otherwise maybe join and live in one.

Where it will protect is for the large number of women who are promised marriage by men which then doesn’t materialise and who go ahead and have children (and it’s very easy to say to a 36 year old woman to not get pregnant when she feels that this is the only chance she will have at a family). Currently men are allowed to build families and walk away

It won't. Because those men will carefully research loopholes and use them. Eg initiating a breakup just when they might be on the hook for cohabitation. Asking their partner to move out to give them space for a few months every three years. Asking them to do paperwork for financial/tax reasons. Hiring a good lawyer.

How easy is it going to be for women to 'opt out' though. How many couples with a power imbalance do you think would be able to get a pre-nup for example if one partner is intending to gold dig or exploit? Plus then you'll have vulnerable people who won't understand how to 'opt out'. It's much more appropriate to create an opt in where the status quo is as it is unless couples jointly explicitly express wanting to opt in.

I mean this kindly but realistically if you're having a baby with someone who you know is dragging their feet with commitment then there is usually a level of awareness that there is potential you'll end up doing it solo. Outside of unplanned pregnancy that's something I'd say most women are quite aware of being the ones who will find it harder to walk away and being the most impacted.

Equally this kind of creates a precedent where women could be accused of falling pregnant in order to make a concerted stake in a man's home or vice versa.

Realistically people who want to exploit this will do. It offers no protection to women in any real sense but takes away our autonomy.

What a ridiculous proposal - if couples want legal protections they have the option of marriage.

This could lead to a lot of children having parents who don’t live together, and how is that promoting family values?

It would presumably reduce the number of people on Universal Credit due to more asset sharing?

Why does everyone think they are doing this???
It seems to me to force women to either marry / commit, or choose to stay single.. I can’t understand why this proposal would be of benefit.. what’s the real point of it???

To reduce the benefits bill, at a guess.

I think thats why the government want it bought in.

If you have over £10,000 in savings you dont qualify for benefits etc.

Also if you get half of someones property you can buy a flat so the welfare dont have to house you.

My thoughts exactly! This is not good for so many reasons.

Have the government not got more pressing stuff to sort out without sticking their noses into more and more aspects of our lives.