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.

Thanks for that. I don't disagree one iota. People need to be spelling that out to the consultation. I will add it to my comments once I have read the whole thing.

They really have forgotten that women work and own property in their own right, haven't they?

Mumsnet is bound to be read by policy wonks for feedback, let's hope they get the message that many women don't want this.

I've heard it proposed that it will help domestic abuse survivors but surely the best thing for the victims is to have as little to do with their abusers as possible not be embroiled with them in legal entanglements?

Abusers often take a 'if I'm going down, you're going down with me.' attitude.

Women are being put in more danger, not less.

I have thought about something else with this - homelessness/housing and benefits.

'You are not eligible for accommodation under [whatever Homelessness Act it is] because you have an interest in a property and are therefore deemed to be adequately housed'

'You are not eligible for Universal Credit because there is x amount in the name of Mr Abusive Bastard to which you are entitled and you have a calculated income from property in the name of Mr Abusive Bastard of £y'.

'You are not eligible for the Universal Credit Housing Costs component in respect of rental costs due to your interest in a property'.

'You are not eligible for Council Tax support/the single person discount as this is a second home'

'Dear Mr Abusive Bastard. You are longer eligible for x due to also having an interest in a property in the name of Ms Thoughtidgotsafelyawayfromhimatlast at 4 Neverwatedhimtofindme Terrace, Margate/savings in a bank account containing £justenoughtoputarentaldepositdownandfurnishit.'

Another scenario. Both have some assets. Someone is having and affair and decides they are leaving the relationship and needs a fund to start again.
The other person is completely unaware of this.
This person starts paying for everything on credit card while withdrawing amounts of cash to squirrel.

Both become jointly liable for credit card debt and the scheming person leaves with cash under the mattress.

I agree.
What a terrifying prospect for those unfortunate enough to be in that situation.

Does this currently happen with married couples? If you are married and separated you aren't deemed to be in a second home because you own your other home jointly.

That would be very Machiavellian ......for David Lammy lol.

Nah, they've just stuck it through ChatGPT and haven't interrogated it sufficiently to find the massive fucking pitfalls full of venomous snakes, hungry tigers and pointy sticks.

Unless Lammy's got a dog in the fight somewhere, I doubt he has the intellect to realise it'll render thousands of women unable to leave, unable to access support and potentially increase the murder rate from men who realise they stand to lose 50% of what they are already stopping their victims from accessing.

Never attribute to malice that which can adequately explained by stupidity.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I just suppose attributing rights to cohabiting couples sounds good as a popular measure: what they're forgetting, of course, is that there's already a hugely well known available remedy to legal issues in a relationship called marriage and that if people don't marry they probably don't want to be tied to another person in that way.

In a way attitudes have changed because there's been no moralising about whether people who are married are 'better' than those who are cohabiting on this thread.

To me, that doesn't even enter into it for a second.

Quote 'increase the murder rate from men who realise they stand to lose 50% of what they are already stopping their victims from accessing'.
This is very important to mention. He fell for the transwomen are most vulnerable guff after all. This is real female vulnerability.
I assume the UK stats are still 2 women per week killed by a partner?

The more you think about it the more problems there are with trying to do this.
I mean what happens if your partner up and leaves after the 3 year mark. If you're married I believe once you've waited a certain amount of time you can show you've been separated and don't know where they are and I think you can force the divorce through and I'm guessing at that point they couldn't come back and claim for assets. If you were never married how do you prove when the split happened and finalise that they can't claim your assets anymore

If they're phrasing it as "rights" for cohabiting couples, that sounds like both in the couple will benefit but if it's just about redistribution of assets, there'll be a loser for every gainer. And it's not clear to me that the gainer will always be the deserving party, (if indeed any adult ever deserves to take another adult's property for themselves without a contract or purchase).

It's not "rights for couples", it's "redistribution of assets between unmarried partners" which doesn't have the same ring to it.

I think it's also being promoted as protecting vulnerable women. It may actually be the vulnerable women that are the losers in many cases

The idea that this proposed law is only for sexual couples and not (say) siblings who live together, seems to be rooted in a weird kind of paperback romance ideology that requires you to be so in love with whoever you're sleeping with that you want to share all your stuff. It's just not how real life works. Most people I know would rather lend money to a sibling than an unmarried 3-year relationship partner, let alone sign over a share of their house

Yes presumably, two siblings living together in a property owned by one of them, is currently not at risk of the sibling who isn't on the deeds being able to acquire a beneficial interest in the property? I am not sure.

Does it specify how to prove the date you've been cohabiting from? Surely the whole point of CP or marriage if you give notice of and the officialise the date the partnership starts legally. If someone's casually staying for a bit how soon do you have to opt out?

They are going to have to do something about the housing market so people don't have to shack up to be able to afford to live first.

This all just sounds like it's a policy designed to protect little children - those who are far too young and vulnerable to be able to understand the bigger picture and make informed decisions, and so they need responsible adults to advocate for them.

Women are not little children. It's phenomenally patronising and thoroughly misogynistic to suggest that women cannot know their own minds and make wise financial decisions - much less actually provide financially for themselves and their children and want to actively protect this - and so the law needs to be changed to save women from the silly naive foolishness that they will automatically have by dint of being women.

I agree to some extent but the fact remains that lots of people (both men and women) are idiots and don't protect their own interests. Not just financially but in terms of their health and other aspects of life.

But the solution for those people needs to be educational rather than legal - run advertising campaigns about the legalities of marriage vs cohabiting, say. Not just confiscating other people's assets!

Much like we don't ban people from drinking too much alcohol but plaster warnings and units on drinks instead.

I may be patronising here but the specific women I know, who are unmarried mums, have got themselves into a potential pickle. It is definitely true that some women (as well as some men) are naive and don't make wise financial decisions.

The difference between them is that we have biology against us and we are usually the ones left carrying the baby (literally, if pregnant). So the consequences of naivety hit us way harder than men.

Yes, you are patronising.

Both of the single mums I know are hardworking, resourceful and doing a fabulous job raising kind decent young people in safe and loving homes.

Whereas I know several married ladies who are stuck in abusive relationships, raising their children in less than ideal circumstances, with at least one child learning to be abusive from his dad. Being married is not a guarantee of happiness or of being an effective parent. Sometimes, quite the opposite.

I was raised by a single mum. I haven't said a word against single mums and you'll never find me saying one if you advanced search my whole mumsnet history. Please do not imply I've said anything I haven't. Nowhere have I ever hinted that single mums don't do a "fabulous job". Nor have I said being married is a guarantee of happiness, we are talking about division of assets on divorce, so not about happy marriages but about terminated marriages.

I think you're confused - when I said unmarried mums I meant not single mums but cohabiting mums, the subject of this thread (maybe you haven't read the thread?)

The whole premise of this thread and the proposed law change is that unmarried/cohabiting mums, after break-up, can be left with nothing. Whereas married mums, on divorce, can receive a share of marital assets. It's not patronising to point out that choosing to have children without being married first is therefore financially unwise, depending on the balance of incomes.

How you took from that, that I'm criticising single mums, I don't know.

@Kingdomofsleep what I'm about to say doesn't directly address what you've said but is related to it.

Even it's assumed women are naive girls in their minds who crave marriage to some hot but commitment phobic manchild who won't marry them and 'man up' (NOT, NOT!! true but for sake of argument).
Like we're in a 90's rom com.

Men who wish to have a long-term relationship usually have no issue with marriage.
I repeat: Men who wish to have a long-term relationship usually have no issue with marriage.

Men who do not wish to have a long-term relationship, the so-called commitment phobes, will simply not live with any woman any more if it means they are effectively married.

They just won't.
There's also a bit of underlying misandry with these reforms.
Like men are so desperate for sex they'll cohabit just to get it because he can't possibly be without a woman.
Like these reforms are some kind of 'gotcha!'

Oh no. Not true. At all.

In fact if he's attractive enough for a woman to get pregnant by him and to be very, very attracted to him and he's not mature enough yet to commit (if he is he'll have no problem with marriage) then chances are there's other women who find him attractive too.

It's no surprise to me why an unattractive man who's never had women chase him would support cohabitation rights, he simply doesn't know what it's like to be a very attractive man and have choices.

Bottom line: It's not going to reign hot men who aren't ready to commit who have choices with women in at all!

Yes, it is financially unwise.

What i say below feels related, not a direct reply!

I think most people in the thread agree this problem is a serious issue that needs addressing: "unmarried mums who are left with nothing after separation".

However, I think people are disagreeing with the consultation's proposed "solution", which is very broad and poorly targeted: It takes choice away from many who are happily cohabiting with separate finances (including couples without children/shared children) AND introduces new vulnerabilities and forms of abuse for other kinds of women (e.g. women with assets who may or may not have children with a cocklodger).

They've also proposed more targeted solutions around child maintenance specifically.