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.

This is a hiding to nothing. If you want the protections of marriage, get married!

Also 2-3 years is nothing. Plenty of people move in together in a relationship pretty quickly and do this with several partners before actually settling down. It’s not always the commitment people want to think it is.

Totally agree.

But that isn't reality and hasn't been for some time.

And not all couples have sex. Many couples, particularly older people, sleep in separate bedrooms. Some older people who met their partner late in life may never have had sex due to sexual dysfunction issues or just not wanting to anymore. People can be together for company and may love each other but not necessarily have a sexual relationship. Asexual people also exist.

This is a terrible idea.
Many couples who get together later in life decide not to marry.
This keeps it much simpler in terms of inheritance for their respective adult children.
This would just completely muddy the waters.

If couples living together of any age have taken a conscious decision not to put their relationship on a legal footing it’s for a reason. Otherwise marry or enter into a civil partnership. There’s plenty of choices currently available

So then they deal with the consequences of their choices. Other people shouldn’t be affected financially to compensate for their choices.

Nothing will change anyway.

If you want the protections of marriage then just get married. Simple.

Exactly. A previous poster stated that the stats are that 50% of pregnancies are unplanned! Not sure if that is true but, if it is, that is absolutely ridiculous.

I am specifically referring to abortion here.

The man has no choice over this. None.

Well no. Under these proposals the guy would have taken a completely different approach to having her live there because he would have done it with the law of the land at the time in mind, which is presumably what he has done here.

Under these proposals she wouldn’t be entitled to anything because they don’t have kids and she isn’t financially dependent on him.

It is covered in PSHE!

this is taken from the statutory guidance (for secondary pupils):

Pupils should know:

• that there are different types of committed, stable relationships.
• how these relationships might contribute to human happiness and their importance for bringing up children.
• what marriage is, including their legal status – for example, that marriage carries legal rights and protections not available to couples who are cohabiting or who have married, for example, in an unregistered religious ceremony.
• why marriage is an important relationship choice for many couples and why it must be freely entered into.
• the characteristics and legal status of other types of long-term relationships.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/relationships-education-relationships-and-sex-education-rse-and-health-education/relationships-and-sex-education-rse-secondary

Sorry, I don’t understand this mentality at all. The marriage ceremony can be very minimal and you only need 2 witnesses, they could be strangers you pull off the street. Not getting married as you don’t want a ceremony sounds very weak.

Also, your comment about people not wanting to marry ‘due to what they’ve seen growing up’. Having a wedding ring won’t make your relationship break apart or cause more trauma to your kids if you do split up.

If you have kids you’re already tied to the other person forever, why wouldn’t you get married and legally formalise it.

The proposals say if people have lived together for 3+ years OR if they have children. So if they have children it could be under 3 years, if none then 3 years if the qualifying period.

And she could argue she is dependent on him as she lived in his flat and he paid the bills.

unsurprising given its ownership and agenda that the Times takes an anti women stance: I don’t read it.

Either the individuals (usually a man) shares money / assets, the less wealthy one manages on less (also affecting DC if there are any) and / or there are costs to the state.

Pensions timebomb is likely part of the logic for this too.

It’d be feasible to exclude money / assets before cohabiting.

Since other countries have this it’s straightforward to look at the costs and benefits for different parties.

It's easy. Assume that if you have unprotected sex (and you only know it is protected if YOU use the contraception) that it could result in a live birth.

This is not an abortion rights debate.

But if the law changes, would it be 3 years from that date or if people have been living together for 3 years already?

The point is many couples want to live together without marriage or having the financial ties of marriage and they should be allowed to.

Presumably this is something that will be dealt with at the consultation stage.

And the drawbacks, of course.

the main drawbacks will be for the wealthier ex, and their DC if applicable. Usually men.

The main benefits are likely to be less wealthy ex partners, usually women, their DC, and reduced costs to the state.

And here’s a link to the consultation, for anyone who is interested in reading the whole thing and commenting.

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

I'm still legally married. I get on well with ex and neither of us are in great financial positions - the plan is to divorce when one of us can buy out the other or the kids are grown and flown (whichever comes first) to protect the kids housing situation. We broke up when the kids were very young.

I am also in a long, cohabitating relationship with a disabled partner who cannot work and needs care. No kids to him and no intention. Ex doesn't care about DP living in a home that's half Ex's, they get on well.

I wonder who gets priority on my stuff?! It'd be an absolute minefield. I do like a complicated life, but I can't be the only one 😆.

I don’t agree with this and I think it’s probably to do with the state having to support people (mainly women) when the ever increasing number of unmarried couples split up. I’m not married btw and we have 2 children.

I would prefer to see something done about the ever increasing number of men who don’t pay, or get away with not paying by being self employed, for their children.

Australia has a terrible housing crisis and people living in tents.

There is already an opt in - it is called marriage. (Not wedding, marriage)

Or civil partnership if one doesnt like the connotations of marriage.

There is not only one, but TWO ways to
opt in.

The fact that you're now worried years later about your security after having had children with a man who you are not married to is, quite frankly, your own fault.

Anyway, if a man won't opt in to marriage, he isn't likely to opt-in to this other new thing is he?

Sorry, I don't think I explained myself clearly. I don't want marriage or any formalised partnership arrangement, including civil partnerships. That is a personal choice and something I have felt strongly about for a long time.

My point isn't that marriage is bad or that nobody should get married. My point is that modern relationships look different now, particularly for younger generations, and the law should recognise that reality.

As I said in my original post though, I think any system should absolutely be opt-in with some form of process rather than automatic. I don't see the problem with allowing committed couples who have consciously chosen not to marry to access legal protections if they actively choose to do so.