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'm not denying that benefits are taxpayers' money, though.
Where did I deny it?
(although it could be argued, that the claimants themselves were taxpayers before a bout of bad luck, but that's irrelevant.)

I am just comparing two situations:
The first where the government can deem two people 'as married' as regards the benefits system.
Even when they may be little more than housemates who have sex.

And the second where they are proposing doing the same to split other people's money to give to another person.

My point is simple: that people who are hoping to claim benefits usually are not in a position to fight any 'as married' decisions whereas people with assets might be. I mean no more than that.
Really, I don't.

Absent fathers not supporting their children financially isn't stopped by marriage.

My exh never paid towards our child even though he should have. He just claimed he was too unwell to work and claimed benefits instead, but he was definitely making some money somewhere. He made a miraculous recovery once our child became an adult.

If it’s about providing for the children then thr focus would be on encouraging CMS to use the wealth of powers they actually have (some of which staff don’t even know - the man who trained me had no clue of some of the powers they had and he was the trainer!) to wisely enforce maintenance.

No government has bothered with this issue for donkeys years - not even when it was money owed to them.

How? He would have to pay for his children's upkeep (in theory at least) married or not.

He's just as likely to up and leave and then engage a solicitor/threaten her so that he gets half her pension, savings and takes her car because she can't pay him in that scenario.

And now this useless government - who it seems can't even sort out a system that most people would regard as fair (I certainly do) absent fathers paying for their children regardless of marital status - are about to impose a whole new set of stupid rules that probably won't work, either.

Three years of cohabitation with no children. What a fing joke.
I repeat: what a fing joke.

Exactly if he's the type of man to walk out he can take money off her.
The clear answer is to make use of existing child support laws.
Why aren't they doing this?
All this makes me a bit conspiracy theorist-y: is it deliberately to have people living apart?

Because in spite of a PP's assertion that we are all fools for love, which we are not, people can be very, very, very rational when it comes to that which they work hard for, nobody with anything of substance to lose is going to cohabit again.

The good news is that apparently these clowns in government would require support from other main parties for this and could only be brought in during their time as government.

Who knows. It could be timed out. Probably we should have heed another poster who said we should take this with a pinch of salt.

Under Schedule 1 of The Children's Act 1989, an unmarried partner in the event of relationship breakdown who is the main carer has a right to stay in the family home until the youngest child reaches 18/ends education even though it may be solely owned by the other parent.

The house then reverts back to the owner.
I'd say that once the children are adults that it is entirely reasonable that they (main parent) were then asked to leave. Entirely reasonable.

Seems there are remedies already available to protect the vulnerable - which in my opinion are children and children only.

Grown adults are surely responsible for themselves.

Labour has a large majority so why do you think they need support from other parties to enact this bonkers legislation? Starmer isn't very good at getting his lefty MPs to vote for his ever changing policies but alas I suspect the Labour left wing will be in favour even if not really in their own personal interest.
It's either about giving fees to the legal profession or about a backdoor redistribution of property assets. The latter could well see people avoid cohabitation and keep their own separate properties which would put even more pressure on limited housing stock. Bonkers as I said.

My understanding is that Labour and Lib Dems are in favour of this, but the Conservatives and Reform are against. Never thought I’d see the day when I was in favour of the Conservatives and Reform, but here we are. Could take 2028 for the bill to be passed. We must fight this. It’s a massive overstep from the government. People who have already moved people in thinking their assets and future stability were safe, as well as their children’s inheritance, will have the ground whipped from under them if this goes through. It’s not what they signed up for. It shouldn’t be allowed to come in at all, let alone retrospectively. Disgusting.

I still haven't read the document yet but yes retrospectively would be outrageous and definitely not a vote winner.

I totally agree with you.

It can't be about children or inheritance.

I've had to do a bit of digging to find out a few things here: some of which I sort of absorbed by osmosis which needed confirmation but there are already remedies for the issues they present.

I've been thinking about this and it could just be a trick to get a bit of it passed (which is still unreasonable if presented by itself) by hiding it amongst things which are wholly unreasonable.

Hear me out: if I tell you ten things that would annoy will happen in the course of your day, but an hour later say I've lied and only one of them is going to happen you may feel a bit relieved.

But if I told you truthfully from the start about that one thing only you'd be annoyed.
Same outcome, though.

In other words, some of the more outrageous stuff gets dispensed with to pass what they really want to pass which if presented by itself people would be pissed off about but are instead relieved.

I hope this makes sense. Lol.

I think you are spot on. I had thought the exact same thing. What’s the betting they will say the consultation revealed that people thought the length of time (3 years) was too short, so we suggest a longer period of time to qualify. I don’t trust them one bit after this. I bet it is all a very sly way of giving lawyers an absolute windfall with all the inheritance disputes this will cause. I would still be furious if they state it would only happen if you had lived together for 10 years plus because it’s the principle for me. I think your assets should be protected indefinitely if that’s what you wish. You shouldn’t be able to take someone else’s assets that they have worked hard for before you had even moved in together. As a divorcee, I don’t want to face the prospect of never being able to live with anyone again in order to protect my children’s inheritance. However, I will pick their protection over anything else. What a position to put people in, especially those who have already moved in. It makes me sick.

I'm married but if my spouse were to predecease me, I'd be in the same position as you. Never be able to cohabit again.
I don't know if I thought of this trick myself, maybe I'd absorbed it by watching a political drama/comedy, but yeah obviously the principle is that no inch should be given.

I'm swinging between: is this just another thing that will come to naught or they're determined to get it through.
And yes some darker conspiracy theorist stuff has entered my mind. Atomisation of society, less family bonds etc.

(Even the most outrageous claims can be made under the Dependency Act, thinking of the wifelet of the Marquess of Bath, don't know if this was successful or not-giving in would open the door for the other wifelets-and yes, it's obviously not a normal situation, so I don't see how a reasonable claim like a bereaved unmarried woman with three kids can't be made.)

Follow the money is a good guide. Lawyers set to gain, but will the government save money?
I think it's swings and roundabouts.
I say this not to denigrate anybody on means-tested benefits but let's face it there's usually nothing to fight over if poorer people break up, so they've got to target home owners.

Then again, I'd be really interested to know how many unmarried people who work, have money and own a home do not own it jointly.

I can tell that you are absolutely resolute as will be many people who are older and have assets.
I really found the post making out we're idiots for love ALL our lives (and therefore need protection from the government) condescending and incorrect.
Obviously, everybody is entitled to their views if expressed in a respectful manner, but this one really annoyed me.

Well that's a bit of a ramble.

This is awful! I own my home and the thought that if I ever had a partner move in they would be able to lay claim to my child's inheritance is disgusting. It's my house, my money and I should be the only person who decides where it goes. No one else should ever have a claim on a house I paid for in my own right.

The ironic thing is, the vulnerable/poorly informed/uneducatable/possibly abused cohort of people that this is meant to "help" will end being the same cohort most badly affected by it.

People who are already well-informed and empowered to protect themselves and their assets will (depending on their position) have availed themselves of the protections of marriage/civil partnership, or have made the choice not to do so, and (if this patronising violation of the principle of consent is enacted) take the necessary steps to arrange legal contracts or avoid the cohabitation thresholds or whatever.

The former cohort though, will fall into the cohabitation trap and get fleeced by the same controlling/abusive/cocklodging/gold-digging opportunists for whatever property and savings they might have accumulated.

And then we'll start a new cycle of sadface "we must do something" campaigns for another lawyerly gravy train.

I think this is why we need to return to the basic social principle of "it's best to get married before having kids". Because in the majority of cases, that is more beneficial to vulnerable women. And if it becomes expected, then (more) men will do it, and (more) women won't settle for less.

Except there are also women who have more assets than the man in which case if they're going to continue to work after having children it's not beneficial to get married. Especially as the women still often end up looking after the children the majority of the time in most cases.
The fact that some women have made the decision not to get married to protect their assets and have children, will leave these women faces bigger mortgages and less financial security if the rules change. More single Women have actually started to buy more houses than single men in the younger age categories

I'm trying my best to phrase this in such a way that I make my point without being offensive but doesn't it follow that if people are in the former cohort they're less likely to have much money, anyway.
As a general rule that is.
(Obviously yes there are educated people earning not much. I get it. Income not necessarily an indicator of intelligence and so on.)

It can't be denied that the things you mention often go hand in hand with poverty.

So, again, what assets are there to redistribute?

As it happens I do know of someone who has millions in the bank who I would deem to be very vulnerable, but this person is an outlier and already has their money watched over by governmental agencies.

But isn't policy supposed to be for the needs of the many, not a few outliers?

@QuintadosMalvados I make absolutely no judgement on the quantity of assets that any cohort of people may achieve, but rather my thinking was that whatever the amount of assets, if somebody is vulnerable/ill-informed/uneducatable/abused, there will probably be someone looking to take advantage of it by any means they can devise.

And at the moment, supporters of this measure are narrowly focused upon "method A" that vulnerable/ill-informed/uneducatable/abused people can be taken advantage of, without looking outside their tunnel vision that this measure will open up "methods B-C-D-..." that vulnerable/ill-informed/uneducatable/abused people can be taken advantage of.

Whilst also (and this is my overriding concern) driving a coach and horses through the principle that we shouldn't be creating a situation in which people are subjected to legal/financial obligations without giving their explicit consent.

FRIES is a cheesy but helpful acronym for understanding consent, which it seems the government and supporters of this measure would do well to familiarise themselves with.
F: Freely given
R: Reversible
I: Informed
E: Enthusiastic
S: Specific

Yes. I agree.
So in effect these proposals do not solve the issue at all.
Person A who is vulnerable moves in with Person B who is not.
These proposals are supposed to help Person A.

But Person C who is devious moves in with Person D who owns their own house but is vulnerable gets fleeced by person C.

This is effectively palimony in the sense that a person may do nothing towards the household at all. No childcare, no financial contributions and walk away with cash and prizes.

It's kind of legalised prostitution in a round about sort of way. For both sexes.

My overarching view is that unless the couple have children, or the couple themselves are married - in which case, they've brought it on themselves- the state has no business getting involved with their finances. End of story.

But even when the couple have children unmarried, they should be reviewing the CMS side of things, it shouldn't automatically entitle you to the other persons pension and house equity because you could end up in situations where person A bought a house, person B moves in has a child with person A. Person B could leave and person A ends up raising the child on their own, person B takes half their equity and pension and pays £20 a month in CMS. Person A then needs to remortgage the house to buy out person B and ends up having to pay more for their mortgage whilst also paying for all the childcare, bills etc and only gets £20 CMS each month.

When I said that the only time the state should get involved in the lives of unmarried people was when they had children, I meant that they (the state) had a duty to ensure children were adequately provided for and that they have a duty to make a parent provide for his/her child - and there's many ways to do this already- not the other parent.

I see it very simply: unmarried couples with children? Children must be provided for, not the other parent.

Unmarried couples without children? Sort it out themselves.

Yes absolutely, in the rare (I believe statistically it is rare) instance where the mum is a higher earner and experiences no drop in earnings due to having children, she might be better off remaining unmarried and cohabiting.

Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your view) many women (I was one) have the intention not to reduce their hours, but then once they have children the sheer neediness of those children make them change their mind. (I was still breastfeeding each child until they were well over 2yo and couldn't manage that on full time hours.) My salary has fallen after having kids while my dh's has grown, and stats on gender pay gaps indicate this is typical. So I do believe in the majority of cases, getting married before having children benefits most mums and it's a good general principle.

Either way, marriage is the way to share assets, and remaining unmarried is the way not to. This is how it should remain.

Many women get less wages during maternity leave and/or if they then work part time after children. However they’ll pay less money into the joint bills/mortgage account than their partner to make up for it. If they then come into some inheritance or other assets before a relationship breakdown, the new rules might mean they have to give half to the ex! Just as marriage would which puts me off and makes me concerned about what’s coming.