The Times has reported this week that there are developments afoot on plans to reform the legal position between cohabitees who decided not to get married.
During the previous general election, Labour pledged to reform the current laws governing the rights and obligations of cohabiting couples. Last week, the Labour government set out that it would be actioning this pledge by bringing ‘ambitious reforms’ to the legal rights and obligations of unmarried cohabiting couples. This move is being both praised and criticised in equal measure. Therefore, the question is, why do the current laws on cohabiting couples need reforming and why has it been such a controversial topic?
The current position for unmarried cohabitees
The current law provides little to no protection to unmarried cohabitees when it comes to the financial responsibilities and obligations of cohabitees. Therefore, unlike married couples, who have some legal protection in the event of separation, an unmarried couple has no legal responsibilities to each other upon separation.
This can result in the unfortunate scenario where, following a split between unmarried cohabitees, one of the parties can be left with no home and virtually no financial resources compared to the other party who has the ‘lion’s share’ of assets.
This can be commonly seen in cases where one party (Party A) of an unmarried couple moves into the property of the other party (Party B). It is a widely common myth that, after a definite period of time, party A will automatically gain some sort of beneficial interest in the property. However, this is in fact incorrect.
If the couple were to separate, it would be up to Party A to prove, in court, that they are in fact entitled to have a beneficial interest in Party B’s property. This can be seen as particularly unfair for parties who have contributed to the upkeep and maintenance of the family home in other ways than finance.
There are also problems where one party dies because, unless they have made a will, there is no legal protection for the survivor, who may have no rights to any inheritance, or to remain in the property if they do not own it. In some cases, it might be possible to bring claims against the deceased’s estate but they may not be in a financial position to pursue those claims.
The Courts have sought to recognise and deal with some of the common issues arising. In situations where one party has invested money into a property, but does not legally own the property, it may be possible to rely on the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (often abbreviated to “TLATA”) and, provided there is evidence, the Court can order that there should be an adjustment to the shares in which the property is owned.
Equally, for long relationships and where there have been promises that one party would acquire an interest in the property, it is sometimes possible to rely on the principles of Proprietary Estoppel to argue that the Court should enforce that promise.
In addition, where a party dies and does not make a will, the other party may be able to bring a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.
However, each of these claims requires the court’s involvement and the party concerned funding a legal claim.
The need for reform?
These sorts of situations may be more common than you may think. There are currently an estimated 3.6 million unmarried couples cohabiting. This number continues to rise year by year as fewer people decide to get married. Many of the couples cohabiting will be in different financial positions, with one party being financially stronger than the other. With limited current legal protection in place for unmarried cohabitees, that could potentially leave a substantial amount of people in a financially difficult situation with limited recourse through the court system.
Campaigners are hoping that the reformation of these laws will provide the parties, and often the financially weaker party, with some basic financial protection if their relationship with their cohabitee takes a turn for the worst. This may mean that any unmarried couple, who are living the same lifestyle as a married couple, would be offered similar protection to those of a married couple.
Not everyone is in support of these changes, there is an argument that such responsibilities and obligations should not be forced upon the unwilling or unaware. When two parties are married, they choose to ‘opt in’ to the obligations and responsibilities that are set out in the statute. Should the same obligations be automatically imposed on every couple who chooses to live together? This will undoubtedly result in people taking on legal responsibilities that they are completely unaware of, which can have substantial financial consequences if things end up going south between the parties.
No matter how you look this, the separation of cohabitees will always be an difficult thing, with the involvement of high-running emotions and life changing financial consequences. We await further details of the planned reforms.
How we can help
While we await these reforms, the current law remains complicated to navigate alone. The notion of reform highlights that it can be difficult to ascertain what your position is in regard to bringing or defending a claim for an interest in the property. We can break down these legal complexities and offer assistance to help you understand your position and provide you with guidance as to the best possible next steps.
Our team of experts deal with these cases regularly and will be happy to assist you. As a top firm for client satisfaction, we have built a reputation as good listeners, who can help break down complex legal jargon into words you can understand and are experts at advising on your specific situation.
