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.

I would be v annoyed if this came into play. Dp moved into my house that I own and spent my life working to buy. He earns a lot less than me. I don’t see how it’s fair that he would be entitled to a share in my house just because he lives with me. Seems ludicrous. When I die, the house goes to my kids (if there’s any money left and it’s not needed to pay for care).

Both on here and irl I hear of couples delaying marriage because of pregnancy. Mostly because of the perceived cost of a wedding with a baby also on the way. Also in some cases because the woman doesn't want to be visibly pregnant/not feeling great etc at the wedding. Then it's easy to see how it gets pushed back in the priorities list. If the relationship later fails these are the folks who would potentially benefit from a change in the law.

Would be so much better if they understood that a pregnancy may mean marriage should be prioritised rather than delayed. A wedding, however, can wait as long as they want.

If he needs care, under this proposal I imagine “his” share of the house could be used to calculate his care home contributions!

Ah, there’s a thing in the Times by Libby Purves on this:

Cohabitees would do well to put it all in writing

https://www.thetimes.com/article/aae02ce0-04b7-4def-866b-4be082f216f1?shareToken=80590362f5090e4afe34bb8141bb3b0e

Death is a serious event with consequences but if a couple are co habiting without children and they decide to split, surely it doesn't imply that the party who owns the property cannot stay there alone. The contribution from the cohabitee was useful but not essential for the budget.
Is Labour proposing that after 3 years a sale of the house can be forced like in divorce with a joint mortgage to award 50 per cent of the equity to the party who doesn't legally own it or the mortgage?
It's hardly in most politicians personal interest to enact such a law, so maybe commonsense will prevail. Surely catch all human rights law could help. How is it fair to pinch property after 3 years of living together? Seems like a massive infringement to me.

I hope that somebody in a position of authority reads this thread.
I hope they see that women are against this.

I've said it before but in the instance whereby a person owns their own home, works but their partner does not- or earns much less than them- and they have no children together then this may end up costing the government more in terms of benefit claims.

Why? Because I bet there are a lot of people in this situation who on hearing about these proposals are going to ask the non-working% lesser earning partner to leave in order to save the house for their children from another relationship.

I don't blame them. Not a bit. Nobody sane would leave it to chance. They'll simply live apart.

So now we have an unemployed/ low income person in need of benefits and housing because the working partner no longer helps support them.

Watch as the cohabitation rate plummets.

Nice work, Lammy.

Never forget that the cohabitee will often be contributing far less monetarily to the party with the mortgage than they would have had to pay in a single living arrangement (this saves on housing benefit). So it's not as if there is zero benefit in cohabiting for the cohabitee who has to leave when the relationship ends.

I think it's a stupid idea. It will make any kind of cohabiting very risky.

While I do see this commonly on MN I'm not sure what the proposed protection is from except they're own choices or assumptions. I'm not sure why anyone would assume something is a shared asset that they never signed any paperwork for. Likewise a relationship has two people, you can't get strung along with a ring for years unless you're taking no active steps to book a date, give notice etc. I just don't understand the assumption that contributions to a relationship should be recognised by the state for couples who refuse to notify the state of the date they would like their responsibility to eachother recognised (via civil partnership or marriage).

This is not only about having children together. It is framed in terms of "children of the family", and it is stated that welfare of the children is the priority. So stepchildren may count too as well.

In a divorce, pre-marital assets are fair game too in Emgland and Wales.

What's to stop person A claiming that they lived with person B and therefore half of A's stuff belongs to B?

I'm not too sure.

They were talking about it on money box on radio 4 last week and they seem pretty confident that it would go through.

I think it is okay as long as if people make a will then the will takes precedence.

@MustTryHarderAndHarder you'd also have to complete the opt out as well as making wills I think, which would likely necessitate both parties getting independent legal advice and then the opt out agreement being drawn up. A costly process, all to avoid being forced into a legal agreement without consent.

Seems to me the big winners here will be members of the legal profession, more billable hours for them.

They really have got a deathwish then...how to make yourself unelectable with those who pay tax and own stuff.

I agree. So many women seem to be perfectly content being passengers in their own lives, just waiting for a man to decide on their fate, it’s ridiculous. And then they’re surprised when the man who wouldn’t commit to a marriage was never planning to commit for life.

The two options for cohabitation that already exist are perfectly acceptable: if you want additional rights you get married, if you don’t then you cohabit without marriage.

The state cannot get involved in every aspect of citizens’ lives. If this goes ahead, how will it be managed? How much will it cost the taxpayer to enforce? Who will pay for the court cases? For the administrative burden?

A will only covers death not splitting up. It's a dog's breakfast.

Exactly. And if they opt out at the start of moving in how are these women not going to end up with he same issue and then be asking the state to opt them in after X amount of years. If a man doesn't want to arrange a simple appointment at the registry office to formalise your relationship surely just don't give up work / make yourself financially dependant on them?!

My suspicion is that this is at least partly a budgetary measure rather than being about protecting victims of abuse.

Two groups that seem particularly relevant are women in religious marriages that were never legally registered, and the first significant cohort of older unmarried mothers who may have spent years out of the workforce because of childcare responsibilities and now face reduced earning capacity as they approach retirement.

From a public policy perspective, there is an obvious incentive for the state to address situations where people emerge from long-term relationships with limited financial security and may otherwise become increasingly reliant on public support.

For many people outside those groups, however, the benefits are neutral at best.

I genuinely despair at the threads I see in relation to this. There is a wealth of information out there about the issues with cohabiting/having children/becoming a SAHM without the legal protection of marriage, and yet millions of women do it. And then cry foul when caught out. The state cannot fix everything. Personal responsibility must come into play.

I got married last year, and the absolutely no-frills, registry office option was £52. That’s it! The cost of a meal out. If women don’t value themselves enough to insist on that as a bare minimum before giving up their lives to a man then that’s on them.

How is it fair to pinch property after 3 years of living together? Seems like a massive infringement to me.

I agree.

Imagine being a homeowner and having your DP, be it male or female move in only for the relationship to end a few years later and they be quids in.

Start in your mid 20's and by the time you're mid 60's you could have accumulated quite a nice money pot in which to purchase your own propery and live a contented life with a bunch of cats.

Other pets are available

I think this has been brewing since the government of the day lost the case about paying bereavement benefits to unmarried parents whose live-in partner dies.

i think there will be a push from government (of all kinds) for couples who have children to be treated as married in all areas going forward.

You can respond to the consultation, and I strongly recommend anyone with strong views to do so. I will be doing this evening. It’s a terrible idea which will see the state massively overreaching.

I think it's OTT to change the law as it would catch too many people who never intended to share their worldly goods, hence not being married! That should also be a choice and the default position.

It may also have unintended consequences - like making things far worse for those trying to protect their older parents and relatives from exploitation. If they marry someone who is only after their money, that's one thing, but imagine if by just living there they were entitled to their money!