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?.

Why should people care though? It was all their choice, taking autonomy away from other people doesn’t actually fix the shitty relationships of those in the examples.

It's a dreadful, ill-thought out idea with huge knock on consequences for individuals, families and the already already struggling housing stock.

I don’t understand why you’d want someone living with you long term, who you’re romantically involved with but have no intention of marrying? And yet potentially taking money off them? I just think this is unfair, but that’s just my opinion. I think if you want to spend your life with someone, marry them, if not then don’t live together - you can still have relationship but not live together. That way you have your own secure housing and money, no worries if you split up. I don’t see the importance of living together if not married or committed.

I think if you want to spend your life with someone, marry them, if not then don’t live together - you can still have relationship but not live together.

This is honestly the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever read.

How about in cases like this - unexpected bereavement in an engaged couple....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2vx4dvgzno

Too bad though?
Engaged is not married.
Some people are engaged for years, decades even.
If you want protection get married, have a civil partnership, draw up a will. There are literally no many ways.

My view is that now there is the option of civil partnerships for those who don't want marriage, and also same sex marriage/civil partnerships, the rights and responsibilities these bring should not be extended.

The point about paying maintenance is well made. I would enforce by one of two ways- the option to declare someone bankrupt if they don't pay, or an action to reduce their spending until they do (no holiday abroad or no driving licence, there could be others).

Most of that would have been resolved with a will and life insurance. Both very simple to set up.

I'm widowed and have always said I'll never remarry as I want to protect my assets for my two DC. If these proposals come in then I guess I'll never live with someone either.

Yes. It sounds tough but this is a known risk. A marriage certificate isn't very glamorous or expensive but it is far more valuable than a wedding. There is an argument that is rarely made for just getting on with it.

This is why, whenever there is a thread about someone moving in with a partner who owns their own home, I always disagree with people saying the partner should pay rent. They absolutely should NOT be contributing to an asset they have no legal rights to, to protect themselves as much as to stop the homeowner profiting from the partner which I think is morally grim. I owned my flat before I met my partner. When he moved in after 2 years, we split bills 50/50 and I paid the whole mortgage from my own bank account. We opened a joint account solely for bills, so his money didn’t even enter the account the mortgage came from. I have now added him to the mortgage so we pay 50/50 on everything. But that’s as far as I’m willing to entangle finances. I know what being unmarried means and that’s my choice.

Very sad and unfortunate but doesn’t remotely change my opinion. It was complicated by the fact they didn’t have wills. Although I did raise eyebrows at the bit where she said she had to pay his share of the mortgage. That would happen even if they were married! Someone has to pay for the house they jointly owned and if he’s dead, that someone is her. Life insurance would’ve solved that, but marriage or cohabitation rights wouldn’t make any difference.

Because I love my partner, and love living with him. Its awesome. BUT we are middle aged, second chance here - I have lots of assets, he has none. I dont wnat to hand over half of my stuff if we break up. I also don't want my children to lose their inheritance. I would marry him in a heartbeat if we had equal amount or he had more! Its not about depth of feeling, its about security if things go to shit. I already lost more than half before, and had to rebuild, Im not going to do it again.

This is why you’re supposed to get life insurance when you take out a joint mortgage, and make a will.

I’m with PPs that think it’s a hideous idea, for reasons already brought up.

This. If we chased down all the feckless fathers and made them pay for their children we could lift very many children out of poverty. That surely should be the priority.

This seems complete madness and takes away our individual autonomy and will worsen the housing crisis if people in relationships intentionally maintain their own homes instead of moving in together.

The ONLY time I think it would be helpful is when there are joint children, particularly if one parent has reduced earning capacity due to career break /child care and/or the more financially viable one has refused marriage (and might be difficult with child maintenance and co-parenting going forwards).

So, I’d support a ruling protecting a currently vulnerable sector of society - unmarried, co-habiting mothers of young children and especially those who moved in to ‘his’ house initially. However, when it comes to people like me - divorced, grown up (or no) children, own my house etc - errrr, no.

Why are they meddling in this and taking more autonomy way from people.

Detest this government more each day.

Ditto!!

You’d marry him if he had more?! That’s a bit hypocritical. So you’d be happy for him to risk his assets for you but you wouldn’t do the same for him? I don’t want to get married and that stands whether I’m the higher or lower earner. I’m not entitled to anyone else’s money any more than they’re entitled to mine.

What about that?

Make it compulsory to have a will or otherwise thered be a consequence eg you get taxed extra.

Everyone would soon have a will.

The problem we are discussing is cohabition rights. The problem we were and not discussing is having left a will.

Yet somehow we are conflating the two. Why?

Three years isnt long. Even married people who divorce under five years the divorce guidelines are you both leave the marriage with what you entered it with.

So if someone moves in my house after three years they meet someone they leave and then i get a legal letter saying i owe them money fucking not on.

So you just enforce child maintenance better instead.

Again the proposal is the wrong 'solution' for the wrong issue.

If you have this scheme then next big scam will be people who get all their mail sent to X address and then claim they were in a relationship with X. When they weren't. Then the emphasis is on someone to prove they are NOT in a relationship with someone. How do you do that?
.

If and when this new law comes out they have to live with you for three years less one day ( bleedin crazy) before they can claim.

You would have to ask him to leave or evict him before the two years 364 days is up.

I have thought of this too ( great minds etc).

If i was mercernary enough their is a wealthy ex of mine who lives down south.

I could phone thames council council tax and say i live at his address go on the none edited electoral roll.

When the new law comes out wait three or 4 years than see a solicitor and claim three hundred grand which in my part of Manchester would get me a really nice house or two two bed apartments.

I think the poster meant if he had more money

not if he had more money than her

so still earn less than her…just not too much less