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.

The upshot of this is that people who live together will be effectively married, like it or not.

Cohabitation will become a thing of the past reserved for an underclass who have nothing to lose.

My thoughts exactly. Isn’t Keir Starmer a former lawyer? Definitely looks like a favour for mates in the legal industry who are set to make a mint out of all the people then seeking legal advice over this. Disgusting.

Fundamentally it's about education. Marriage is neither just a piece of paper, nor an expensive party. It is a legal contract which can be either incredibly beneficial or detrimental to an individual depending upon their circumstances. People need to understand this and make decisions for their own security and future.

On the plus side, if cohabitation is going to more or less the same as marriage it will certainly make people think about moving somebody in with them that they're not wholly committed to- maybe that's not a bad thing.

People can often slide into things without thought for the long-term consequences. This is true.

Of course if neither has any money or property it makes no difference.
Then again, situations change.
A couple on benefits could be in a situation where one - or both-of them gets a job or inherits.

Shame you and others didn't spot it in their manifesto. All politicians are good at bringing controversial policies in under the radar in the guise of commonsense.

Spot on with this

Hmm.. I think it's pretty naive to assume that a sponger boyfriend wont just lie and make out he was 'disadvantaged' or contributed, did childcare or cared for the woman. It is difficult to prove if someone worked part time or lower salary because they had to, or because they simply wanted to. This type of guy will likely not be earning what he could but it'll be out of laziness. I can see major issues around if someone becomes an addict during the relationship. Many woman have to leave men due to addiction, debt or gambling. Many men feel or make out they do more share of childcare than is reality. This won't protect all women at all - it'll be much harder for those who do own house, savings or have a decent job to leave. It actually opens them up to abuse.

I really wish I had spotted it. They would never have got my vote. If it goes through, they never will again.

I've been through the 2024 manifesto document and I can't find any mention of this proposal. Can anyone see something I've missed?

https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Labour-Party-manifesto-2024.pdf

I totally agree.
This cohabitation right stuff has been doing the rounds for decades, it's come to nothing. I remember reading about it in 2005.

Can't see why it would now, especially as women work and contribute to the household financially. Mortgages tend to be joint.

It's come to nothing because it doesn't actually save the government any money and a lot of the stuff it aims to combat already have legal remedies.

I don't even see the argument with wills.

There is already a system whereby an unmarried cohabiting partner can make a claim as a dependent of their deceased partner.

There is already a system by which even if a person is not named on the mortgage if they can prove they paid utility bills or building repairs they have a claim on the property.

Fathers are already financially responsible for their children. Married or not.

@Chersfrozenface page 68 there’s part of one paragraph that mentions strengthening protections for cohabiting women.

"We will strengthen the rights and protections available to women in co-habiting couples..."

13 words, not even a whole sentence. Small wonder I, and I don't doubt many others, missed it

And no details at all.

Cohabiting women?
Isn't that discrimination against men?
Not that I'm a man, but discrimination all the same.

I would have thought so.

The Times header and sub-header say
"Unmarried couples may get right to share of assets after break-up
The government is considering strengthening the financial position of those who choose not to marry"

Which suggests men as well as women would have to be given these rights. (Anyone got a share token, so we can read the whole article?)

And what about gay men? Gay couples in Scotland and Australia have the same rights under cohabitation laws as opposite sex couples. If that were the case in England and Wales, how could you have rights for gay men but not for straight men?

It sounds like a dog's dinner to me.

Somebody used the saving money for government argument above.
Don't see how it would.
No working man - or woman-is going to move an unemployed partner in with them anymore.
They'd be really daft if they did.
They may be willing to financially support them while living together but not when they break up.

So somebody who may have taken another person off benefits for a while may no longer do so.

And if the other person is working well I assume they'd be paying utility bills which may legitimately give them a claim if they can prove it.

A system for which ready exists!

Let's not forget the weasel word 'considering' either.

We have a system that allows people to legally combine their finances and possessions, it is called marriage. If you want the legal protections of marriage then marry

Absolutely agree..

It's both discrimination against men AND deeply patronising to women - as though they're little children who couldn't possibly trouble their pretty little heads with financial planning and deciding whether marriage is for them or not.

Australia is even more entrenched in gaslighting and giving women's rights away to transwomen, for them to add on to their own existing equivalent rights, than we are.

Canada's MAID programme - Medical Assistance In Dying - should serve as a dire warning to us to not just consider how it may start but how it may end up. I'll never forget the disabled Canadian woman who couldn't get the accessible housing that she needed, despite trying over a long timespan. She was repeatedly told that she could just agree to let them kill her instead - thus removing the need to find/provide safe, suitable, affordable housing for her - and eventually she had had all she could take of the badgering and she gave up and agreed; and she is now dead.

Yes I agree.
This is like something from the 1950's.
Clearly the Labour Party haven't considered that women are going to get screwed over by this, too in terms of losing assets.

Do they think all women are housewives? That they don't own - or jointly own - property?
What century are they in? Ffs.

Also, you simply cannot have something like this that only applies to women.
The MRA's are going to be all over this and I don't blame them. It IS blatant discrimination.

I'm sure that there are cohabitees out there who are deeply committed to one another, conversely there are married people who aren't, but I can't see why anybody in their right mind is going to cohabit if they've got assets with anybody they can't see being with for life any more.

It would be financial suicide.

Agree. Like we should look to the Australians and Canadians for guidance on how to conduct matters.
Ffs.
I actually thought at one time the Aussies were on the whole sensible people.
Seems not.

I don't agree. If you want to be married, you should get married. If you didn't get married, the assumption should be that you didn't want to be married.

That would be good if so as my DC is about to move his gf in.

We have this in New Zealand and have had for quite a while. You can agree as a couple to sign an opt out agreement at the start of the relationship.

Do you have any idea what happens when there’s more than two people in the relationship? Or a person has been living with two people at once (long term affair)?

They would be dealing with both at the same time. Living with someone wouldn't stop you getting a divorce settlement and being married wouldn't negate the living together timeline.
The divorce settlement would be worked out from the date you officially separated.