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.

My ex and I didn't marry, had three kids, were together nearly 30 years, then went our separate ways (for various reasons).
We split everything reasonably, and agreed for her to get more of the house sale, so to have somewhere for our adult kids to come 'home' to.
We didn't row about money, we talked about it like adults, and both walked away happy. We occasionally meet up for a coffee. We like each other again, and respect the fact that once we loved each other enough to have children together.
Not all couples separate bitterly, or try to screw each other over.

I think this can be a fair argument in one sense, but it still doesn't mean that the one automatically leads to the other.

For example, if you don't have a sufficient source of income, you can qualify for unemployment benefit or UC... but whilst you do bring in enough money, the government doesn't have any interest in, or right to, start negotiating your salary with your boss or help you push for promotions or better working conditions. Even if your employer does contravene your basic minimum workplace rights as required by law, it's still up to you to raise your concerns and take it further; the government won't routinely check on your behalf and do it automatically for you - the same as they won't automatically send you any unemployment benefits or UC without you applying for them first.

I can see a case for educating the general population as to what marriage actually means - and how it is achieved, at a very reasonably low cost. Yes, there are loads of fancy extras that most people want, and spend an absolute fortune on; but they have no part of the actual legal marriage.

Just like, if you pass your driving test, you are now legally allowed to drive and that's that - and it make no difference whatsoever whether you also decide at the same time to buy yourself a brand new Lamborghini, a fourth-hand Fiesta or no car at all.

Common law marriage does exist in other places. That isn’t a good thing. It’s bad law.

multiple people have mentioned Muslim marriages. What about them prevents barriers to legal recognition in the uk? What stops people from getting the paperwork done like everyone else? If real barriers do exist, why not just address those directly and narrowly?

After 26 years if you own a joint property, you should consider whether you want the protection from IHT on first death, that marriage would give you both.

I wish the equity in our property was worth enough for inheritance tax! If we end up in that situation we will sort out a CP. We own as joint tenants, and if one of us died we would only inherit about 50-100k worth or property.

My first reaction was hell no

But then I was thinking it would make sense in abusive relationships where rhe abusive partner may own the house and control assets in their name and refuse to marry

This already exists in other countries (ie Australia) and is not that difficult to understand. Most posters here sound like they are from another century.

Well women need to be a bit more savvy about when a bloke is likely to want to make a commitment. Is that before or after having a child I wonder?

That isn't "the proposal", and you clearly haven't read any of it to start a conversation about. The 3 year one, is for couples with children, and is more complicated even then.

Well I don't want to import law from Australia when Julia Gillard happily kissed women's rights away there by making gender identity ideology on a par with biological sex.
In the UK many parents pass on large deposits for house purchase to young adults and this proposal is fraught with difficulty in that regard. I can see this policy forcing people to live alone. How dystopian. Hope it will never see the light of day in the UK.

We have this in Australia already, although it's not black & white 50%. Originally put on place to protect women who cut back or stopped work for children. My SIL broke up with her partner she'd lived with for 10 years & got almost nothing, though, as her ex had been smart about protecting his huge inheritance (probably through a trust).

It has good and bad points. If something happened to DH I'd never live with anyone again, even if I wanted to. We're mortgage free and have good pensions. I envy UK's current arrangement where you can walk away long us unmarried, with your assets. I'd risk everything i worked for, and my future security, and my DC inheritance. It's not worth it.

I wish you could live with someone and choose through a legal contract before moving in, to either share, or not share, without marriage.

Thankfully our version of pension (super) is governed differently & not including the will & as long as beneficiaries are named correctly it's safe (as it can be).

I think this situation is really common, and given that apparently 50% of pregnancies in the UK are unplanned, there are lots of couples drifting from relationship to cohabiting parents - and lots of men deliberately not marrying to avoid sharing assets, but by then the women are trapped and stay to avoid becoming single mums leading to later impoverishment for the women

We've had this in Ireland for years, you could be entitled to redress after 5 years or 2 if you have kids. You have to be financially dependent on the partner though.
You can opt out if you sign a cohabitation agreement at the start stating you're opting out of future redress but the judge can overrule that if they think it would create a serious injustice if they didn't.

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth-family-relationships/problems-in-marriages-and-other-relationships/redress-scheme-for-cohabiting-couples/

I’m really surprised at the negativity. Given the trend is now towards living together before marriage, there seem to be a lot of cases on here where women have moved in with their partner, seeing this as the next step towards marriage, only to fall pregnant then the wedding is delayed, the guy realises he’s better off not getting married but having someone who deals with the kids and house and refuses to marry. And the woman is vulnerable and scared to break up the family and hoping he will change his mind.

I think it should definitely apply if you have kids together. That will reduce child poverty and reduce financial abuse within relationships.

Australia recognises de facto relationships as being equal to married, it has pros and cons. More security for women who give up work to look after kids, more care needed in protecting assets you might bring to a relationship. Like being married length of relationship matters and of course the needs of any children are supposed to be prioritised. So many women in England think “common law marriage” is a thing and leave themselves hugely vulnerable. Personally I prefer the Australian way having done extensive property mediation.

What on earth are you on about.

there would only be a claim if you can show either that you have been disadvantaged financially as a result of your contributions to the relationship or that the other person has gained a financial advantage from your contributions.

So your sponger boyfriend when you were young wouldn’t have got anything.

It would protect the many women who have kids on the promise or hope of future marriage who compromise their careers to look after kids. Other than for very long term relationships, I think it would mainly only apply where the parties have kids.

I wish you could live with someone and choose through a legal contract before moving in, to either share, or not share, without marriage

You will be able to do this under the reforms. A bit like a prenup.

Sounds like a good idea to me. I’m Australian so de facto relationships being a legally recognised relationship is normal to me. It’s generally known that once you’ve lived together for more than two years that your relationship has basically the same legal implications as marriage.

I didn’t realise that the UK didn’t recognise de facto relationships until I started reading Mumsnet. I find it antiquated that marriage is required to be able to have legal protection for asset splitting etc in the event of the relationship ending.

Registering a civil partnership is another option available in Australia. I think that was initially brought in as a way to recognise same sex relationships and give the partners legal protection. It’s available to same and opposite sex couples. Same sex marriage is now legal too.

Here’s the Australian Family Law Act 1975 and the legal requirements for a de facto relationship to be considered to exist.

https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A00275/2020-11-27/text

I think it can only be a good thing for women, to be honest.

In general, women are going to be the ones to benefit from this.

It should be longer than 3 years though. 5 or 7 would be more appropriate. Or if you have a child, it should happen straight away.

This article is a pretty good general summary of how it works in Australia:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-04-09/what-does-being-in-a-de-facto-relationship-mean/106546776

It would be better to educate people on the financial laws as they stand.

It's very very simple, if you aren't married, you only have rights to what you paid for. I've cohabited several times but always in the knowledge that I had the ability & the deposit to buy a house by myself . Even if you are married, that can end in a moment, and you still need to be able to stand on your own two feet. The days of spousal maintenance are long gone.

It's really simple. Never ever rely on someone else for money.

Easier said than done if you have a child or are pregnant and your partner now says he doesn’t want to get married.

People who are against this reform are basically saying it’s okay for men to exploit women, being able to walk away from a relationship with zero liability while the woman and children are left in poverty. There are cohabitation laws in loads of countries including Ireland and Scotland. It’s not some huge encroachment on human rights.

I am wholly and utterly opposed to this. Utterly.

But, as ever, follow the money:

How do the government save - or lose-money on this?
Because if Starmer and his band of merry c*s put this in the manifesto it must be financial.

Interesting to note that as members of some cultures marry religiously only the rest of society has to change, too.
Though to be fair as now more babies are born to unmarried people than married I can see why they're doing it so it's not fair to blame any minority group.

It would stop casual cohabitation for sure.
Maybe that wouldn't be a bad thing.

People might actually stop and think about what they're doing when they shack up with someone.

Decide not slide.