Consultation on unmarried couples sharing assets when they break up

[CruCru]

There’s a thing in the Times today which says that there is a consultation on unmarried couples sharing assets after a break up. Pretty much, if they separate they could be entitled to a share of a house sale and maintenance. They could also be given automatic inheritance rights if their partner dies without leaving a Will.

The proposal is that people who live together for three years or who have a child together would have these rights.

AIBU to be a bit conflicted on this? On the one hand, I really wish schools covered marriage and the rights and responsibilities it gives you. I’ve talked to women (who live with their partners) who were really taken aback to find out that they didn’t automatically get the same rights as married couples. On the other hand, when I was young (late teens / early twenties), I lived with a boyfriend who was a bit of a sponger - I’d have been really annoyed to find out that he was entitled to any of my money when we split up.

Not ‘ridiculous’ to look at policies to redistribute wealth between citizens to reduce chunky costs to the government / taxpayers for benefits and services for people (women)(with no or adult DC) who cohabited for many years.

You know that half of all people are not averagely intelligent? That's a LOT of people.

This is the position I am in. A widow that will be condemned to living alone forever or risking my financial security because some women make foolish choices and choose not to use contraception with people who haven’t married them.

What costs? There aren't many couples who cohabit (with or without children) where only one of them works.
If there is a mortgage it is usually joint.

I imagine situations where a couple do not have children and one member of the couple doesn't work are very unusual.

In reality, there are no significant savings to be made so yes ridiculous.

In reality, a great deal of people are going to have freedoms taken away for a few people.

Good point.

This is anecdotal but I not know any cohabiting couples without children where only one of them works. Not one.

To be honest, most people-rightly-won't tolerate it if their partner is able to work but does not.

So what's the flipping point of imposing this? It's not going to really save anything, besides which presumably the non-working adult is going to have to be on benefits while what they're 'owed' gets sorted. Or get a job.

But do you have to choose to sign up to it, or does the government just decide that it's probably what they think should suit you and so you get assigned it by default?

If the former, no issues at all; but it's the latter, this is where the problems lie.

So why on earth did you comment? The pp was explaining that people still cohabit in countries with these laws in place and that it hasn't caused a terrible housing crisis in answer to another pp who said people would no longer cohabit. Your comment makes no sense in that context.

Also, as I live in one of the countries which has had these laws in place for a long time I really think I know a little bit more about it than you do!

You have to choose to, but in my country at least, it makes getting a mortgage much cheaper and registering children easier. The implications were spelt out fairly clearly by the midwife to me. A lot of couples then chose to get married later. You still get idiots who choose not to protect themselves, but you also get people who drive without insurance.

I agree that the suggestion of it happening automatically are idiotic, but the uk really misses a legal half wayhouse.

There is no need for an expensive consultation. If you want to protect yourself don't live together.

Why on earth should older couples who want to keep assets seperate for inheritance reasons be denied the companionship of cohabitation?

Ridiculously unfair when those who DO benefit from the rights of marriage and civil partnership already have those options.

They are trying to bring this in with same legislation against abuse (VAWG).
It seems a very complicated way round. Baroness Levitt KC is working on it for Lammy-the-Dunce.

Or, if you want to protect yourself, use contraception and get married.

Why should people be forced to live alone when they don’t want or need to for the protection of adults who are too irresponsible to look after themselves?

I can see how this might protect a cohabitating couple who have children together. In reality I know lots of women who don’t want to get married to financially protect themselves, especially if they have children from a previous relationship

The Labour government still haven't learned that laws need to be considered for their potential harms and abuse by bad actors. Not just how nice normal reasonable people will apply them.

Look at this thread - where a deceased woman's FWB is claiming that he has a right to assets from her estate and a property owned by her niece. The UK is full of entitled cocklodgers who will use lawfare, intimidation and threats to get their hands on cash. Why are we handing them a means to do it?
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5513909-update-to-aibu-to-refuse-aunts-fwb-claim-on-her-estate

I also don't understand why unmarried couples are suggested an 'opt-in' where they are legally recognised for the purposes of assets, pensions, benefits and taxes. There is one. It's called marriage. And if that's too uncool then you can have a civil partnership. Is the end game lots of different 'marriage' sub-brands that you can pick and choose like toothpaste?

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/millions-of-unmarried-couples-to-get-stronger-rights

It’s at consultation stage, and the proposal is not to give the same rights as marriage/civil partnerships. It’s to give some protection.

Yes that exactly what I was getting it. It devolves into a he said vs she said situation (or he said vs he said, or she said vs she said) so it all comes down to whoever comes across as the most believable which is very dangerous.

Yes we (opposite sex) are civil partners, rather than married for this very reason. We both liked entering the commitment as equal partners.

a couple of friends did this before us which got us thinking about it as an option.

Many married women don’t change their name and being ‘giving away’ is not mandatory either. You can walk yourself down the aisle if you want to or even walk down together. The vows to ‘obey’ were removed a long time ago and today the vows mirror each other and are the same for men and women.

Many women who want the fairytale wedding CHOOSE to wear the white dress and be ‘given away’ by their dad. But it isn’t at all necessary.

Im not comfortable with this at all. People can choose not to marry to protect assets AND they should have the right to do so (men and women), but this should not preclude them being able to share their life with someone.
I guess where children are part of the relationship there is an argument for it.
No children then absolutely not.
Legal contracts- marriage and civil partnerships exist to protect and solidify relationships.
Can of worms *and money in solicitors pockets springs to mind.

That could also be worded as 'thousands of abusive men to get stronger rights to protect their access to women's property and continue their abuse even after their coercive control has been recognised by their partners and ex partners'.

What needs to happen is far better information - mandatory in education establishments and a message heavily and consistently pushed - to make sure people (mostly women) KNOW they don’t gain rights by cohabiting and/or having a child. Far too many people get caught out. I genuinely don’t see how, but it’s very common. These phrases such as common law wife/husband etc. They believe they have protections and rights that they simply don’t have.

If anyone wants to take such an enormous (and foolish) risk then that’s on them - we still live in a free country. But I do think it’s important to ensure they are truly aware of what they’re doing, by mass education on the subject. Marriage isn’t ‘just a piece of paper’, as others have said it’s a contract and that gives rights and responsibilities.

@FKAT I would only suggest an "opt in" to this specific plan in order to avoid the opt out process which would mean couples being put into a different legal state without their consent until the point that they opt out. Especially as the proposed opt out requires the consent of both parties.

I think men are adults who know how sex works and could perhaps… use a condom?

interestingly they are looking at this too

”The government is also proposing making pre-nuptial and post-nuptial agreements legally binding so people who choose to enter one can feel confident their financial wishes will be honoured if they divorce.”

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/millions-of-unmarried-couples-to-get-stronger-rights