to want my boyfriend to propose to me

[woahthere]

We have been together for 8 years. I love him very much. We have a lovely little boy together and he is a great father to my other 2 children. I am very very lucky, BUT, I wish that he would propose, we have discussed it and I know he is quite a quiet person and i have said that if we got married we could do it low key because i know he would hate the whole big shebang. AIBU to want to make it official. I feel let down that all of my friends, his brother etc are getting married and I still never get that feeling of joy of having been asked. Every special occasion I hope that he will ask me and he never does and secretly it really hurts.

The scheme rules of the public sector schemes that you mention also have specific eligibility requirements for cohabitees to receive a survivor pension (e.g. must have lived together for a particular time etc) so anyone who is seeking to rely on those rules should check them carefully (or call the scheme trustees for guidance).

I should point out that this position is not generally reflected in private sector defined benefit schemes in my experience. It is peculiar to public sector schemes. Most private sector occupational pension schemes still require the survivor to be legally married or in civil partnership to be eligible.

my dp is private sector I'm his pension beneficiary,unmarried
don't know the prevalence but it's not uncommon if beneficiary is nominated on appropriate paperwork

good we concur emsjy that it depends from scheme to scheme,there is variability.there is no blanket pension beneficiary need be married partner

certainly I'd advise all to be prudent and protect loved ones and family, take advice and make provision

Nominating a beneficiary for a lump sum is not the same as nominating a recipient for survivor pension. The survivor pension is usually paid to a specific person as defined by the rules. I have never seen a scheme that permits the member to nominate a beneficiary for a survivor pension. I presume this is because there are tax rules relating to who can receive a survivors' pension, but have never advised on this so I would have to look it up to be sure.

Here is some limited info on entitlement to survivors pension - www.pensionsadvisoryservice.org.uk/workplace-pension-schemes/career-average-revalued-earnings-(care)-schemes/death-benefits It states that the GMP is payable to the spouse or surviving civil partner (although the remainder can seemingly be paid to a financial dependent or child too). I assume this is due to the tax regime, but am going to bed now so not got time to look it up.

(Sorry, boring ex-pensions lawyer here...)

emsyj it depends whether or not the scheme voluntarily recognises unmarried partners, not compelled to.but increasingly schemes do make this provision

I know that for my dh (private sector) he had the 'Death In Service' which was the lump sum payment, and he could fill in an expression of wishes form for that - but even so, the 'Scheme' still had the final say in who got the payment, it was by no means guaranteed unless you were married.

The pension is a different thing altogether - I will get a portion of his pension rights in the event of his death or divorce, and you have to be married for that benefit. If we were cohabiting there is legally nothing I could do to get that. Since I am the SAHP and have not been paying into a pension for a decade to raise our children, this is important to me.

Don't really know why I put my post in the past tense there! He has the Death in Service....

Even if they do recognise them, they impose very specific criteria before doing so - you can't just name someone. There is clearly a reason for the extra requirements and I would say with some conviction that it will be due to the tax rules.

The death in service payment that you refer to SweetLilyTea is discretionary and payable to the person(s) the trustees decide. This is to ensure that it does not form part of the estate for inheritance tax purposes. There is no guarantee that a legal spouse will get it either - there is no more entitlement for a legal spouse to receive the payment than a cohabiting partner. The trustees will consider the contents of the member's expression of wish form, whether their circumstances have changed since it was filled out, all those persons who might expect to receive a payment and their financial position/level of dependence on the deceased member etc - but being legally married to the member does not automatically entitle you to receive the payment.

this has beenlively but quite frankly no legalities or benefits would compel me to marry

indeed usually has to be partner of certain Length time,and complete appropriate documentation. not rusell and Katy brand for example

Sorry emsyj my post was badly worded (it's late). I was trying to show the difference between DiS award (ie. with expression of wishes form) - so potentially payable to anyone nominated, and the pension rights, where only the married spouse can benefit.

I believe my husband's DiS form had a space for you to name your chosen beneficiary, some waffle about Next of Kin (and how it didn't have to be your Next of Kin) and how the 'Scheme' has the final say in who gets it.

Still not making any sense am I?

Death in Service - Lump sum that employee can nominate a beneficary (at the Scheme's discretion)

Pension - have to be married partner to benefit.

Lequeen it is a choice. I want dp to have my money when I go and vice versa and we want the other to have a say in medical treatment etc so we have set that up. I don,t think any one should rely on getting someones pension innthis day andage as the pension industry is in the middle of huge change andthere is a lot of risk. The traditional set up of mans life carrying on as normal once kids arrive gives him no sense his life has changed andthere is often a sense of owership of his salary and pension etc and so I think if you give up work you need to get this straight beforehand if you don,t want to get married.I pad so shitty typing. Dp and I adore each other and i do hope that the law will change and there will be equal rights for long term co habitees but until,then you are an individual and need to deal with your finances as such and not complain after the event.

2012 is a leap year, take advantage of the 29th Feb

I'm sure you didn't mean your comment personally to me noddy, but I'm not relying on the pension. Its just that I'd rather have it than not have it as it were.

Noddy, be mindful that you'll get walloped for inheritance tax if you aren't married. It may not affect you now - but in the future? If there's a property to sell, for example...it's quite a chunk.

I know you say you don't need that money, but personally I'd rather have that money for my kids than be forced to hand it over to the government, simply through the absence of a piece of paper!

Bear in mind too that depending on your profession, it can be difficult re-entering the workforce as an older worker.

The government consulted on this issue in 2011 and there are no plans to extend the rights of cohabiting couples.
www.lawpack.co.uk/cohabitation/news/article5948.asp

Thanks for all the concern I am mindful Hides thread Happy new year x

LeQueen - you hit the nail on the head. And of course, even after all that time and money (more expensive than a quickie marriage) you still can't achieve all the benefits and security that marriage delivers.

Each to their own, I respect the position of those who feel marriage is not for them - but the lack of awareness around this issue is truly amazing.

I just hate to think of people getting a nasty shock at the worst time, on death or separation.

hang one cant win contradictory arguments proposed here

if one doesn't make adequate sound provision eg nok, wills etc then according some here thats naive and in for big shock. hand apparently it's negligent to not make provision for dp and family

if one does cover all finances,will, nok,property,the consumer durables..then oh no that's several trips to solicitor and emulating marriage when one could get married

and yes I have covered property,nok, consumer goods, my possessions that I bought. this is IMO v sensible, it's not emulating marriage.it's being prudent

I am being canny about what's mine, and what's his, whats ours, and how to adequately provide for whatever circumstances arise

nothing to do with marriage, everything to do with good planning

Well I don't see how anyone can argue that it isn't foolish and naive to be without a will and suitable next of kin arrangements, if unmarried. And I don't think there's any contradiction in saying that having several trips to the solicitor to get as many of the protections of marriage as you can is more expensive and more of a pain in the arse than going to the registry office. It is.

But if a person dislikes the idea of getting married more than they dislike spending extra time and money, it's perfectly rational to do it like that. Provided of course you're aware of the things it's impossible to replicate outside marriage eg IHT exemption and are making an informed decision to forego them.