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 do wonder if perhaps as PPs suggested that these women genuinely think the law will somehow provide for them / they'll be recognised as a common law wife. However, it's 2026, we all know a quick Google will tell you that's not true. I completely agree with you that's it's women not valuing themselves enough to insist on marriage etc and sadly I think there's a % of women who think a pregnancy is going to push the man to propose/ marry when it really really won't.

Another one here with a no frills 👏🏻 We got a civil partnership, super cheap and took about 10 minutes if that, we weren't fussed about a wedding but we wanted to just make sure everything legally was in place so we were both protected. So many excuses about not getting married / civil partnered prior to a baby coming just don't add up with the reality of how easy is.

Yes, that is a good point.

I wonder if something that is the equivalent of a prenup would be valid then?

There needs to be some protection for people who don't want to share their assets.

Yes.

Whatever they do will disadvantage someone.

But so many people are so ignorant about their rights.

I am against it because personally I own my house and I wouldn't want to leave it to someone just because I cohabited with them.

My son lives in Canada and there after a certain time you become a common law spouse and you have all the rights of an ordinary spouse.

It is, however, broadly what happened in Gow v Grant in Scotland, where a version of these rights has existed for some time.

The relationship lasted 4 years (not 3 you mentioned, but still) and both parties were approaching retirement age. Ms Gow sold her flat, used much of the proceeds to clear her own (substantial) consumer debts, moved into Mr Grant's home and left her job.

When the relationship ended, she argued that she had suffered an economic disadvantage because she had given up ownership of her flat and would have retained the benefit of its appreciation had the relationship not occurred. The courts ultimately agreed and awarded her substantial compensation (which could have been raised only by Mr Grant selling his own house).

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/human-rights/human-rights-act/article-1-first-protocol-protection-property

Someone could bring a case that their property rights are being infringed?

But getting married at a cost of £52 or £52k is not beneficial to women who don’t want to share all their assets if the relationship breaks down! These women have chosen to cohabit without marriage and now those rights might be taken away…

I think this can be a useful opportunity for these women to reflect on the level of commitment and financial interdependence that exists within their relationships, and whether their legal arrangements actually reflect that reality.

I have an unmarried live-in partner who would be significantly disadvantaged if we separated, or if I became unable to work - with limited options to do anything about it due to age and health. It's certainly made me think carefully about whether the protections we have in place for him are adequate and whether we've properly planned for the future.

I agree with you. My point is that it’s important to have both options for a wealth of reasons.

The option to cohabit without financial ties shouldn’t be taken away because some women have spent years trying to manufacture a fairytale wedding that will never happen.

My son lives in Canada and there after a certain time you become a common law spouse and you have all the rights of an ordinary spouse.

So they have forced marriage as well as coercive 'euthanasia' for anybody seen as less than perfect in Canada, then? Canada used to be seen as an absolute model country for people wanting a democratic, respectful, tolerant, prosperous western lifestyle - still, nothing lasts forever, eh?

All those savings will be offset by people not cohabiting any more.

The point of cohabitation for many is that it is free of the responsibilities of marriage.
That's the truth of it. And I pass no moral judgement on that.

I'm married but if my spouse were to die before me there is no way as a homeowner I will ever cohabit after his death if this comes in. No way!!!
I doubt I'd be the only one.

So lots of single people households with no live-in support.

As for commitment phobic men, well they're certainly not going to cohabit if it's effectively the same as marriage are they?

Expect single parent households to rise.

Indeed, QuintadosMalvados - if this comes in, a few years down the line, the same government (of whatever colour rosette) that was so desperate to take away people's individual financial freedoms and give their money away to somebody else with whom they cohabit(ed) will be desperately trying to find out why there are so many more single households than before.

Same as the authorities who claim they want to discourage people from buying 4X4s whilst merrily leaving enormous unmended craters in all the roads and installing ridiculously high speed bumps along main routes that completely trash a small hatchback however slowly you drive.

This will be so open to abuse - long term boyfriends/girlfriends claiming they were cohabiting because they spent most of the time at one house, unscrupulous carers claiming they were shacked up with the person they were caring for, how does it work if someone claims there are three in the bed (live in nanny claiming she was shagging the husband for years and therefore cohabiting) etc etc. Even if they don't have a leg to stand on the mere threat of lengthy litigation may lead to people paying out to make it go away (and really unscrupulous people will ensure they have a paper trail to ensure they 'make their case' even if there was no genuine cohabitation).

But doesn't the legal system already recognise cohabitation in some contexts? For example, benefits are generally assessed based on whether you're living together as a couple, not whether you're married. Likewise, immigration law treats a cohabiting partner much the same as a spouse for visa purposes.

Maybe it is all a ruse to prop up the property market by ensuring there are more single households?

Yeah. Wonder if those behind it have shares in one bedroom flats. 😁

Another question is how this would work where someone is still legally married to another person. If rights arise from cohabitation, how do they interact with the rights of the legal spouse? Could both potentially have claims, and could assets or compensation arising from the cohabiting relationship end up being taken into account in a later divorce - can the legal spouse claim assets from the common law spouse? That starts to look legally very messy, very quickly.

Somebody close to me met a separated married man.
Him and his wife had been separated for a year when they met.
Wife refuses to divorce because of religious reasons.

The person close to me and the man live together for 5 years before the divorce is granted.
You can reverse the genders if you like.
Makes no difference. I say this to highlight what a stupid proposal this is.

Who'd have inherited if he'd died at the 3 year mark?
Still married at that point.

I think this situation is actually quite common. My own partner is still legally married, for a variety of reasons, some entirely understandable and some probably down to pure laziness.

That raises an interesting question: if cohabitation rights are introduced and he acquires a potential claim against my property, could that claim then be treated as a marital asset or financial resource in his eventual divorce? In the same way as say expected inheritance is taken into account now.

Same, but apparently we now could lose our hard-earned rights because some women are 'married' (not married) under Sharia Law or in their own heads, and David Lammy is sad about that and thinks this is the answer.

All this before the government has properly sorted out men paying child support adequately. There are billions owed by men in child maintenance in this country, but the government and its own agencies can't be fucked either setting it or collecting it properly.

So now men can move in with a woman for three years, and have a claim on the home the woman uses to house herself and her kids? Perhaps forcing her to have to sell it or go into debt? Fuck off, Lammy.

Too right I'll be looking for an opt-out of this.

Bet they thought women would be all for it, well as this thread demonstrates, not the case.
Sisters have been doing it for themselves for quite a while now and stand to lose out too! So pee off, Lammy.

Yes, I wont be letting anyone over my threshold ever again if this happens!

This will also negatively affect women who take in lodgers. Will they have to kick them out after two years, just in case? Will house-sharing relatives be able to claim these rights? If not, why not?

I’m a lawyer myself but do think this is a lawyers’ charter.

It will massively increase litigation and the issues involved will be just as complex as on divorce if not more so (because it will be necessary in many cases to make a finding of fact as to whether and how long a couple are together etc).

As anyone who has been through divorce will know it is a long expensive stressful process which leaves your life in limbo potentially for years. And to have a risk of that after every relationship where you live with someone for a few years is crazy. Even if ultimately your ex is unsuccessful in claiming anything you could spend 10,000s on legal fees. Even if the reward is relatively small you could lose your house.

I don’t think the disruption that it will cause has been considered at all judging by the consultation document.

Yes - if someone stays the night they would probably be entitled to walk off with your sofa.

Indeed. It would be rather odd to make the existence of a sexual relationship the deciding factor in who acquires rights when financial dependence arises through cohabitation. If the underlying concern is economic vulnerability, why should friends sharing a home, or an adult child who has moved back in with their parents, be considered any less deserving of protection or support?