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.

Say if this new law comes into place and there was no conviction. She will either have to claim for access to financial assets (I imagine a lot of women would just want to run away and not look back rather than trying to go after his assets if they're scared of the abuser) or they would automatically get half his assets (I imagine she may also be in more danger as with these men they are likely to feel incredibly angry).

If they don't impose this new law, she could leave and never look back, but would also not get any access to his financial assets (possibly cause financial issues for her but there would be access to state benefits

If they changed it so on conviction of domestic abuse, they could award financial compensation from the abuser at the same time as a jail sentence, at least the ones who had the conviction would be able to get financial compensation and wouldn't have to worry about him coming after her while he was in jail. She should be allowed the right to refuse compensation if that's her wish to do so. This seems more logical to me

All these government proposals make me very angry (the scenario I describe is not me, I'm married and my particular concern is that should my dh predecease me, I'm going to live alone forever) effectively joining an abuser to somebody who just wants to get away from them with no further contact.
And all this through an imposition that is meant to protect them. Fecking outrageous.

This really needs to be highlighted to them.
There are many reasons to be against these proposals that have nothing to do with VAWG, but as this is directly related to the legislation they're thinking of bringing it under, it's particularly important.

When you think about it this is a real attack on every working, law abiding person who tries to do the right thing according to the social contract.

It's like this: people work, pay taxes, obey the law, pay towards pensions, maybe pay towards a mortgage on the understanding that what they do in the privacy of their home with another consenting adult is not the business of the state unless they are married. In which case they 'brought it on themselves' IYSWIM.

(Yes, systems are already in place for property interest with cohabitees but that's got nothing to do with their sex life. Just to do with provable contributions. And of course, rightfully, children must be provided for.)

These proposals end that.
Your unmarried cohabiting relationship with another adult, should it end, will, if these proposals go through, be the subject of state scrutiny.

In short, you have no right to a private life anymore.
That's the long and short of it.

I'm married. It doesn't affect me (for now) but if I were cohabiting my anger about this would be off the charts.

Worth noting that that divorce lawyers representatives have advocated for a system that allows people to get dragged into legal disputes after a break up of unmarried people for years.

A generous interpretation is if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

The less generous interpretation is they are dragging everyone one in to endless legal paperwork.

My son's friend had this recently. He had a house, she had nothing. His parents (he is only in early 20s so still a bit naive) suggested he get her to sign an opt out agreement to protect his asset, she broke up with him.

As nothing exists in a vacuum, given that there is a lot of instability in government at the moment am I incorrect in thinking that these proposals may not even be discussed?

Genuine question.

I think that because this is outrageous to some here, myself included, perhaps we're forgetting if there's bigger things going on it may not even be discussed?

Interested in any input from those that know more than I do about this.

May be worth flagging to local MPs if policies are up for discussion

It's possible that you wouldn't be allowed not to claim but then claim state benefits within a certain time period - in a deprivation of assets type way.

Just to highlight that the deadline for consultation responses is tomorrow (Friday 14th August)

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/a-fairer-end-to-relationships/a-fairer-end-to-relationships-consultation-document

Even if you just send a quick email, it’s better than nowt.

Contact details/How to respond
You can respond online to the consultation.
Alternatively, please send your response by 14 August 2026 to:
Family Justice Policy Team Ministry of Justice
102 Petty France
London SW1H 9AJ
Email: [email protected]

'State-forced marriage' claim as cohabitation rights consultation closes | Law Gazette

I've just sent my consultation response.

I did make lots of the points made on this thread and also mentioned the Mumsnet discussions that have taken place.

Started by Lammy, hopefully ended by Norris.

One more call for consultation responses. Either fill in the survey (you don't have to answer all the questions) or send an email:

https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/a-fairer-end-to-relationships-consultation/

Yes, even just an email tomorrow saying ‘woah!’ or ‘AGAINST’ would be good.

This country should not sneak in a state-sanctioned marriage by default that disadvantages women who have survived divorce. It’s hard enough as it is to put a roof over your children’s heads post-divorce, without having it put at risk by the state for the act of having a sexual partner.

I have responded.

Baroness Deech has been against this for decades. I think she will really fight against it.

I am hopeful with the change of PM this won't go ahead.

Also the passage of time, making me look at it a bit more objectively has made me think it can't happen - too much uncertainty about when cohabitation started properly.

I hope I am right.

Thanks - there do seem to be a lot of unknowns in these proposals, along with assumptions and stereotyping.

Damn, that's a sneakily worded 'consultation'.

Classic Lammy. We pesky women been hoarding our assets again.

There are so many problems with it I hardly knew where to begin. I gave myself a set length of time in which to write in order not to make my response too long. I hope what I wrote was coherent.

I can only think that this has been designed to create more blillable hours for lawyers😡

And if anyone misses the consultation deadline today, please email your MP and ask them to pass on your views directly to the Justice Secretary (currently Alex Norris).

I filled in the consultation. I can see the arguments in case of people with under 18 children together. But I don't think the intestacy changes make any sense at all. I wonder if a semi acceptable solution would be to allow unilateral opt out but require that opt out to be formally served to the other party in the relationship so they knew their circumstances.

I do really feel for women who have children without getting married and then get stuck at a later date. But I think there are much less intrusive solutions to that than overreaching and auto opting people in to a contract they didn't consent to.

It can't be opt out. It must be opt in. All parties must decide and agree when the clock starts on any sort of asset sharing. It's really not ok otherwise.

And we already have something for that.... What's it called again? Oh! Marriage!