Unmarried couples to gain property rights and possible wider implications

[MsGreying]

Unmarried people to gain rights to partner's property
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/millions-of-unmarried-couples-to-get-stronger-rights

Whilst a simple glance makes it sound appealing I think this has serious consequences.

There's a 10 week consultant from Friday

The obvious snag with this is that men are allowed a number (?4) of wives under Islamic rules.

No it’s not. It’s two years. I have already made a mental note to warn my DD that if they’re in a relationship with someone and it’s approaching this time living together, they need to get legal advice.

In France couples have the option of a PACS (Pacte Civil de Solidarité) which is a sort of light weight marriage contract to share life together. It is something that you need to actively sign rather than rights you accrue just because you live together for a certain length of time. I would prfer to see something like this rather than an automatic right.

Unintended consequences.

The person who is the more vulnerable partner should educate themselves on the consequences of a split rather than depend on a sweeping law that penalises everyone else.

I really think this is a terrible idea. People should only have a claim on your property by active agreement not by inaction eg not actively disagreeing.

What happens in cases where a divorce is ongoing but one or both spouses get a new partner. They live together, over the alotted time but still break up before the divorce is finalised, who gets priority over property? The stx-spouse, the new partner or is everyone getting a share?

Also, and to my mind more importantly, what about vulnerable people particularly those with special needs? It has already been documented that unscrupulous people (often related to other forms of crime) essentially bully their way into the homes of vulnerable people to take up residence. Surely this will only increase if they can potentially get a share of the property at the end?

Edit to add, this is known as cuckooing

This. If people want the legal benefits of marriage then they need to enter into the legal contract to get those. Seems crazy to have anything else.

My mom loves her cocklodger but her will gives her house to her eldest and her grandchildren not him he had a house when they got together he sold it lived off the money now he lives off hers this has real repercussions for people if she wanted to marry him she could she doesn't

It’s very nebulous, defining a qualifying relationship without a marriage/civil partnership, proving how long they were cohabiting (how many nights a week, sharing a room etc?) similarly planting a date in time for a split and defining this without a divorce. Preventing people claiming multiple times over a lifetime, just move in for 3 years, split, take the assets and move on without the effort of a marriage or divorce. What about claims from lodgers/live in carers claiming a relationship and a claim on an elderly persons estate. Sounds like a minefield to me

How will this work for polyamorous couples/throuples? Is everyone getting a split? What about any two random people living together? If I still lived with my stepfather (who I am obviously not actually related to) would I be entitled to a share? I clearly shouldn’t be! What about Keith and Dave sharing a flat to keep costs down? Of course everyone will just get around it with tenancy agreements but then renters rights come into play. What a mess! Feels like Keir’s lawyer mates just needed a new legal minefield to drum up business!

I have chosen not to marry after having a disastrous abusive marriage, the house is mine and will be left to dc but dp can stay there until he dies. If I / he wanted to marry we would but we have actively chosen not to, why should we be forced into a legal arrangement , that we have purposely avoided? Yes, there should be wider knowledge of the benefits / drawbacks of marriage but others shouldn't face the consequences of people's poor actions.

Maybe just make a will...

We have this protection already in Sweden. It's not the same as marriage. With my husband and I everything is a shared asset. If we divorce, it's split 50:50, if one dies, the other gets the lot. My daughter and her partner share everything they aquired after moving in together. Everything they had before moving in together remains their own. If one dies, the other only get their share of the shared assets.

This will make it VERY hard for middle aged and older couples to live together.

Im in my 50s and the majority of my friends are in a second relationship after divorce or being widowed. Most of them chose to simply “ date “ or just cohabit and not to marry, as they want to protect their assets for their own children. Also they can’t face the thought of ( another) divorce .

So if you risking losing all your assets to a cohabitee and not just a spouse, the safest option for them will be to sell their house, put the money in the bank and rent somewhere will their new partner.

This of course is just what the UK needs - even more people entering the private rented sector 🙄. And at a stage of life when most people feel settled in their home and don’t want to move away from family and friends. Y

So how else can I protect my home of 30 years from a future claim from my (theoretical ) new BF , who I will call Dave .

How many nights a week can Dave stay with me ? what if he changes his bank account, credit cards , phone bills or doctors to my address? I won’t know anything about these as they are digital/ online.

What if Dave chats to my neighbours on a Saturday morning while he’s cutting the front grass - will that prove he lives here ?

What if he gives me money each month towards the food that he eats each weekend when he stays over, then later claims it was towards the bills and mortgage?

BTW these are not random examples, I’ve already had the Council (temporarily) stop my single person Council tax benefit because my 21yo son still gets his bank statements here. Even though he’s at University 3 hours away and has a tenancy and is registered for CT there. Oh and he’s not changed the address on his driving license and for HMRC. Because you don't, do you , if you’ve been in 5 flats over 3 years as a student. You don’t want to risk important paperwork going astray.

When I got divorced from my b***d ex husband, there was a dispute about the date we separated and things like socialising together or going on a family holiday together , cooking for each other and eating meals together were used in court as proof that we were a couple . So surely these same things could be used by Dave to prove that we were officially cohabiting?

If Dave is smart, he can change his address for ALL official documents to mine, and then set up a redirect to have them sent to his own place . All he has to do is intercept the ONE letter than comes to notify me of this. Its not hard.

There’s a lot more things Dave could do, that an honest and decent person has never thought about. I only know because I’ve been through a nasty divorce with an evil cunning b***d exH.

As others have said, this is just a field day for the lawyers. It will endanger just as many women as it will protect.

Why though. The only religious ceremonies legally binding in england are church of England or registrar. If Islamic couples want to be afforded uk legal protection then they are can get a civil wedding. It is very common for couples 2 do both either on hhe same day or on to do the legal bit before/after on another day.
If you make sharia legal then who decides which other religions we start to include or not include. It risks making a hierarchy of regions.
Equally I am aware of some cases where Muslim women dont want a UK legal wedding as they want to protect the property to be inherited etc by children from a prior marriage. However would like to be regilously married.

Agree

If we follow Australia's example, you wouldn't even be safe not living at the same address, necessarily.

According to this study on the Australian government website, in Australia even a Living Apart Together arrangement can be considered a legally de facto relationship.

"The research and commentary also identify relationship arrangements known as 'Living Apart Together' (LAT) and show how non-marriage relationships involving couples living separately may nevertheless qualify as de facto relationships (See further Conlan et al., 2014; Evans, 2014; Evans et al., 2023; Hughes, 2015; Upton-Davis & Carroll, 2020; Weston & Qu, 2014)."

I'm glad so many people think it's a terrible idea

It's not likely at this stage, but it would've meant I couldn't have lived with anybody

I think it's totally ridiculous

You want the legal protection of marriage, then get married. Otherwise, you can't have it. So not complicated.

How does that work?

Suppose I lived with a boyfriend

I then purchased a second property, to rent out for my own income, and using only my income to do it and only my name on the mortgage.

Are you saying that in Sweden, if we broke up, he would be able to claim half of that property?

That doesn't protect you from losing assets in a divorce (or relationship breakdown, if this comes in).

I would never remarry to protect my dc inheritance but this would also prevent me from co-habiting as well which I actually think may be harmful to older unmarried couples who look out for each other but have no desire to actually have financial ties to each other. I am very sympathetic to women who have children out of wedlock and then find they have no legal protections but I’m not sure defaulting to this is a great idea either. I would advise Dd to live with someone before she marries them, this makes it quite difficult to do so. I also think you would end up with some vulnerable people being taken advantage of.

I think when you want to share your assets that should be done in an intentional way rather than a position you can inadvertently default to.

Once upon a time civil servants would have analysed the pros and cons before anything was made public. The cons would have helped nuance the policy. That was likely in the pre Spin doctor days. Now they just choose a policy they fancy and lie about what it really involves. Quality of our political class is currently abysmal.

My sister lived in Australia with a guy for maybe 2-3 years. She bought the place so just her name on property before they met and he moved in. He was a total loser. She earned the most and contributed so. He did contribute but nothing more than you’d expect from someone staying. He cheated on her and he moved out but she had to pay him a settlement. So there are downsides but saying that I do feel for a lot of the women who post on here. They’ve been living long term with their partner and he doesn’t want to marry. Nothing is in her name so she’s in a precarious situation.

I think a campaign about the current rules would be helpful. So many people think common law martial status is a thing after so many years.

This

Someone mentioned on one thread there were proposals for an option out. Which doesn't improve it either. The idea is this is supposed to protect the most vulnerable, but an option out would just be open to problems in abusive relationships anyway.

How about we actually do more to enforce more financial responsibility from fathers and have done with it?

This doesn’t achieve anything except exactly what people are trying to avoid. There are several ways to protect a partner- write a will, marry, civil partnership or put them on the deeds. Given that this can very easily be done if the couple want, this is only going to impact people who actively don’t want it.

I think we need to educate young men and women about responsibility, protection, and the impact of having dc. Make sure they know the ways they could be protected, and that it’s risky to become vulnerable by having DC if you aren’t protected.

I was never going to live with another man of DH predeceases me anyway, but this would make it even more of a bad idea.

I can see why it might be a good idea if you are living together and also have a child, but not just living together, no matter how long.

We need better education about the financial risk women take if they have children before marriage (esp if they then give up/reduce their working hours).

This is a terrible idea and I will respond to the consultation accordingly!