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.

Oh, there is plenty that an amoral male could go for with a woman who doesn't own a house.

He could go for the car she uses to get to work, her pension fund from working as a TA, HCA or some admin role, half her furniture, the tiny amount of savings she's put by for Christmas, a small overpayment on rent or utilities, the council tax money or to pay the hugely increased summer holiday childcare. He could claim half the DLA backpayment she's received for a child, the double payment of salary on 20th December that has to last until the end of January, a back payment of child support once that finally hits her account.

And then there's the stuff I pointed out about whether she'd be eligible for housing costs, council tax benefit, whether the LA has a duty to accommodate her, if it means he'd receive details of where she is and what money she has or be able to get her accounts frozen whilst a protracted financial investigation to establish that she actually has sod all in real terms goes on for years - and the emotional impact of some no-good wasteman still coming for her because he wants another bite of everything she's working for even though he just sat on her sofa in her house, driving her car and eating her food until she plucked up the courage to see through his bullshit and manage to get him out.

Don't assume that living in rented accommodation and potentially receiving a top up in Universal Credit means a suitably motivated arsehole won't use a poorly thought out law such as this to harm a woman and any children concerned.

Either this is deeply personal (you or someone you know-I'm not going to ask) or you've just thought of a scenario and run with it.

Just because a material good and income stream is understandably very valuable to the individual doesn't mean to say it would count as an asset in divorce.
(I say divorce as in my view that's the nearest thing that these proposals set to emulate.)

Unless I'm missing something really crucial here, I cannot see how a benefit like DLA and child benefit can be viewed as a marital asset.
It's there for the child.
How could universal credit be counted as an asset? The person does not 'own' a benefit.

As for furniture, unless there's antiques, this seems a bit far out to me.
Like how do you divide a sofa? It's such complicated stuff e. g. like who keeps receipts, do divorce courts even go there?

I don't deny for a second that there is plenty for the cocklodger in this scenario to take advantage of while he's living there. I agree. Maybe not all the things you say here when he leaves, though.

In any case, whether this person exists or not, they've had warning - best they heed it.
This nonsense-even if it passes-is gonna take a few years to come in.
I feel for the person in the scenario but they're having fair warning, it's on them if they don't take it.

It is what abusive and controlling men do.

As it is, many years ago, you may not believe that I woke up to my ex dismantling my bed as I was sleeping in it due to him owning the car (not even paying for petrol or the bed itself) used to get it home from IKEA. That meant he owned it in his eyes. Ive seen other men attempt to force women to hand over their child's DLA because they provided half the dna of the kid, others state that they should be entitled to their ex's pension pot because they sat on their arses whilst she was out at work and her children were in childcare. Staying in bed until noon before watching pornography with a six pack of Stella and a bag of weed is not being a househusband and if a woman is unable or feels unable to chuck that man out (because of aggression or threats of suicide, going down her work to embarrass her, constant manipulation and control, gaslighted that she'd be homeless and penniless because he'd take her for everything she had), it is not for the state to enable her abuser because she's been able to avoid being manipulated to marry or he realises that with marriage comes additional financial obligations in the event of divorce.

This isn't divorce. This is unmarried people potentially being treated as though they were married without their consent, to the advantage of abusers.

Jeez. I get all that. I really, really do. And I don't doubt that these things happened. Not for a second.

But any proposed financial settlement from a cohabiting relationship would have to go in front of a court because what's being proposed here is a legal thing.

So what you say here - while really terrible-doesn't alter that.

This is not about how shitty some men can be. This is about what could count as a fair financial settlement by a court.

And I reiterate what I said earlier:
a court will not treat something like DLA and child benefit as an asset to be given away. It is ring-fenced for the child's wellbeing. As it bloody well should be.

Nor universal credit because a person doesn't own it.

It's not for the court to give away.
I don't know why you're not getting this. I really, really don't.
Unless I'm missing something crucial here, which I don't think I am.

Income-while obviously very important to a person- does not always equal an asset.

I'm totally against any cohabiting rights because it does give an abuser claims on certain things but not all the things you listed.

The one thing I'd be really concerned about (and to reiterate: just because something is valuable to a person doesn't mean it's an asset that can be given away) in your scenario is the pension.

You're not getting that bringing in this law makes all of this possible for the first time, removing the independence and protections women should have precisely because they haven't entered into a legal contract.

Money in a bank account is just money. How long would it take to establish in court that it was DLA? Or that although it's not the exact digital transfer of DLA because it goes into a mother's account along with her wages, UC and any other income, it still represents it?

It's an abuser's dream to be able to mess up the life of somebody who has tried to extricate themselves. And these proposals make it possible for everybody, not just those who willingly entered into a marriage.

I totally get that it's an an abuser's dream.
If you've read this entire thread, you will see that I am wholly, utterly and completely against it for lots of reasons. Not just one.
I'm f*ing appalled by it.

All I'm saying is that some of the things you've mentioned cannot be treated as a shared asset.

This does not mean to say that I don't realise that things aren't valuable to people, just that they can't always be shared.

How can it be ordered that somebody share their universal credit claim in a break-up?

I don't understand what you're saying about the dla, wouldn't it be on a bank statement? Why would it be difficult to separate it from other money?

If it's a set amount and the pay is a set amount, and the UC is a set amount, or even if there's not a set amount there'll still be a paper trail. How's it hard to separate them all out?

I get that the whole thing sucks.
For many people and many different reasons.

I've already made my views known to this consultation. One voice may not mean anything but if lots of people did, well who knows, it's worth a try.

The process would be the punishment. He wouldn't care that it was DLA or whatever she had earned/saved, he'd just want it - and the new legal process would have to go through the motions to establish it wasn't, meaning she'd be unable to access it in the meantime; even without some of the more punitive judges who are unable to see abuse when it's right in front of them.

And, of course, there would be legal fees the woman would have to pay, the stress, the lack of freedom, the delays in accessing pension statements (affects a lot of divorcing teachers at the moment) and the fear that he would get it, along with the possible knock on effects of navigating housing and finances/benefits with a new system that never, ever, takes things like this into account in advance so it's ready to go without the (hopefully) unintended consequences.

All punishment enabled by the State if this comes into play.

Oh yes the process is the punishment, I get that.
Some quibbles, though:
As there seems to be a child involved in this situation, their needs would have to be provided for during this process.

Don't want to nit pick too much though. I get what you're saying.

The whole thing needs to be stopped.
It's a slippery slope. Soon dating will be enough. No joke. A man in the states was ordered to pay 50,000 dollars a month to a girlfriend he didn't live with and had no children with.
He was obviously wealthy but that's not the point.
Many people affected in different ways for different reasons.
It will be deeply unpopular across the board.
Everybody who wishes to be legally tied to someone can already do so. Even a widow who believes marriage is a special spiritual or religious thing to be only had with their late wife can have a CP with a new partner.

There was a separate issue lately that I was convinced was going to pass - because I am an absolute cynic when it comes to governments, some are less worse than others, though.
(Now you may disagree with me on this, fair enough, but respectfully I ask if you do disagree, don't argue about it, I don't want to derail things.)
Anyway it was the Assisted Dying Bill, which would have helped people but effectively given the state the legal ability to kill people off.
It didn't pass The House of Lords. I was like wow. It didn't come to pass, after all.

I think that the person in your scenario has to do all they can to sort things out IF there are things they can do ASAP.

It's not going to come in tomorrow. It'll take a couple of years. If it comes in at all.

If anything good is to come out of this then we must all take responsibility for our own finances and futures. If you have children with someone then have 100% rock-solid reasons why you won't get married first. It needs to be an active decision and not just general apathy, it needs to be the woman's decision and not the cocklodger's bloke's. If, like me, you're older with no dependent children, write a will that makes your wishes perfectly clear (a proper will with a solicitor). All of this is an early warning that there might be trouble ahead and we'd be foolish not to take notice!

I've been reading everyone's responses and keep thinking about how this really will be a pay day for lawyers, even for couples that would normally live and split amicably. There's a bunch of rubbish to deal with in situations of abuse, but even "nice" splits will be drawn into additional legal process.

Either you have to get lawyers involved in the beginning to opt out, or you'll need them at the end to draw up settlement agreements.

For example you split on friendly terms and didn't opt out. Maybe you have been together 10 years, you agree between yourselves that you'll buy your partner out of the shared home and give an extra £15k to help them get on their feet. Under these proposals, that agreement probably wouldn't be enough because your ex could potentially come back and make a financial claim up to two years later. So you'd probably need a solicitor to formally sign off that they're waiving any future claims.

And then if you're renting (so there's no house sale going through lawyers anyway), you'd probably want to get solicitors involved too.

However in both cases, once you bring solicitors in they may well look at what you've actually got (e.g., £300k in a pension and £50k in savings) and advise your ex to go back and ask for a lot more than the £15k you both agreed was fair.

All of this applies even if you have no children together, and even if you never wanted the legal system involved in the first place. Or maybe you do have shared children, but the woman saved and the man spent.

So a field day for lawyers either at the start or the end of every cohabitation relationship. I'm definitely starting to think this is more about drumming up business for the legal profession, rather than "protecting women and children".

Of course it's a field day for lawyers.
What pisses me off is that this is being put under VAWG so anybody who objects might be told so you want women and girls to be hurt?
They know what they're doing.

That's why it's important to point out to those involved in this out of some misguided but good intentions need to know the reasons why this may backfire.

Another thing: will cohabitees be forced to do this? I think that this is really important.

Thinking of a scenario here.
Imagine a gold digger/cocklodger lives for somebody without paying anything for 3 years. No children and no reason not to work.
Some gold diggers/cocklodgers will often move on to the Bigger Better Deal.

They meet somebody who can give them an even easier existence. More money.
To do this, they'd be wise to appear to be wholesome at first.
How is it going to look to the next 'host' if they're dragging the previous one through the system?
Just a thought.

Also, maybe the cocklodger themselves may want to just leave in this scenario with no hassle. They've only got so much energy.

It looks like they could choose to come after the assets over the previous partner for a couple of years, also the new partner might not be aware he's gone after the previous partners assets. They could be fighting for the assets and telling the new partner it all ended amicably
Why would a cocklodger not try squeeze a bit more money out of the previous partner if they can do so. They also tend to be the type to go to the next relationship about how the previous partner was mean, didn't appreciate them, say they paid towards the house (usually only towards food and a few bills, and ignoring the fact that a HMO rented room would cost them more) and generally have an attitude that women owe them something because they exist

@Cherriesandapples1 all valid points.

Now I don't know if this has been mentioned before so forgive me if it has but what if the person who's cohabited for 3 years without contributing any money and no children doesn't want to claim against the other person in the event of a break-up?

It's possible. Will they be compelled to against their will?

I assume they could choose not to, like in a divorce you could choose to let the other partner keep all their assets if they chose to do so
But it leaves the door open to the partner with all the assets in the cohabiting couple on edge for the next couple of years, just in case the other person changes their mind and comes after the assets a year later. I assume you'd need to get a solicitor to draw up a contract to say they're relinquishing their rights to claim going forward, but if they don't sign that then the person with the assets could be waiting for the clock to tick down before those rights are timed out. It's be ridiculous

Thats actually made me wonder about what would happen when a couple split and one of them is on benefits. Would they then be compelled to go after a share?

Could you potentially be seen as depriving yourself if you had, for example, agreed at the beginning you wouldn’t go after each other’s stuff and stick to it?

If you have a written agreement not to go after each others stuff could that be overruled by a court if one is on benefits or in need of care?

I imagine as they'd be trying to align the rights with married couples, it'd probably be treated in a similar way. I can't say I know if someone signs over their right to any assets following a divorce if they would be considered to be depriving themselves of assets in the event their name wasn't on the asset to begin with

This is under VAWG right?
Imagine two people meet, one of them has a house and a job, let's say this person is a man.
Woman moves in. They decide she is going to be a house 'wife', he's going to completely support her financially (up to them) they do not have children.

After about 4 years of this set-up, he becomes violent.
It would be really against the spirit of the legislation to compel her to go after his assets, wouldn't it?

Just trying to see it from different angles.

If he is taken to court and convicted of domestic violence I would have no problem with them awarding her financial compensation from his assets in that scenario Surely that would make more sense.
Just imagine that exact same scenario but the house is owned outright by her before she gave up work, now she's been abused and he automatically gets given half the house too. Automatically getting the half the other persons assets can directly harm the people it's setting out to protect
If the want to protect these people it needs to be done through changes to the CMS system, not allowing for people to be underemployed or claiming that they're not earning as much when they leave their £100k job to be self employed so they can hide their money, harsher penalties for non payment
If there are convictions for domestic violence or abuse forcing the abuser to give financial compensation

What if she just wants to walk away and have absolutely nothing to do with him ever again? I mean nothing.

They've no children so CMS is not relevant.
Will she have the right to walk away and claim benefits or will she be compelled to chase a violent man for cash?

I'm trying to keep the morality of whether or not she should get a job out of it.
In any case, even if she wants to work, she may need benefits for a little while.

This is the sort of issue those who are proposing this crap need to think about.

I think if she wants to walk away and not claim any assets she should be free to do so
If they wanted to change the law that on the conviction of domestic abuse the victim can claim financial compensation, then that would mean she could still be financially protected in this case, if she still wished to make no claim then I imagine a court could take her wishes into account
If they married she could choose to relinquish her claim to all financial assets in that scenario so I'm guessing the same could apply to the cohabitation rights
I just think the blanket rights change is madness. You could protect victims with or without children by adding the ability to award financial compensation if the partner is convicted of abuse
You could protect those with children through CMS reform
You may end up with those that aren't unmarried and don't manage to get a conviction for the partner who abused them where the victims can't claim for financial compensation but ultimately you're not going to protect everyone

OK. As reasonable as that sounds, it's not a certainty.
After all, if the government are talking about what is after all forcing marriage, (because that's what this is) upon 7 million people I think they've a right to know what exactly that entails.

Or they could leave unmarried people the feck alone if they've not got children together and make damned sure CMS is working properly for those that do.

I know, what a mad suggestion! Sarcasm, obviously.

Or they could leave unmarried people the feck alone if they've not got children together and make damned sure CMS is working properly for those that do.

That's exactly what I'm saying this blanket application is nonsense it's affecting people who have no wish to be included in this and have not married their partner on purpose and has just as much chance of screwing over the very people they are trying to protect. If they want to reform anything, they should look at the CMS rules and what they do when they are convicting domestic abusers and leave the rest of unmarried couples out of it

Couldn't agree more.
Here's something else to consider, in the scenario I present here, there may not be a domestic violence conviction.
Maybe he just gets nasty: name-calling, pushing. Obviously awful but maybe not enough to get a conviction, but she knows it can escalate and gets out before it does.

She can't reasonably be expected to stay until there's enough evidence for a conviction.