A Fairer End to Relationships? New Rules Proposed for Cohabiting Couples

Do you think you are in a common-law marriage? Afforded the same legal rights as a married couple upon separation (a 50/50 split unless property is excluded by pre or post nuptial agreement) due to living together?

Unfortunately, you are not. Because, despite 50% of the UK population holding this belief, common-law marriage rights do not exist.

In reality, unmarried cohabitants can only apply to the civil court to determine ownership of their property. All other assets (pensions, bank accounts, vehicles, etc.) are beyond the court’s scope. The only way further assets will be protected is if a cohabitation agreement is in place – which requires both foresight and legal awareness. Furthermore, if the property is in the sole name of one of the parties, the court presumes they hold the entire beneficial interest.

This places the burden on the other party to prove financial contributions or an ownership agreement to claim beneficial interest. Consequently, those unprepared for a split may find themselves out of a relationship and without the means to rehouse themselves – especially if they were financially reliant on their partner or a victim of economic abuse.

Rightly, the government have recognised this as a blind spot in the law (which will only grow more prevalent as more couples choose not to marry) and launched a consultation in June 2026 titled: “A fairer end to relationships”. This sought the public’s opinion on strengthened financial and intestacy rights for cohabiting couples.

But should these proposals be implemented?

The guiding principles

The government made its proposals with the overarching aim of a fair outcome and guided by four principles.

1. Prioritising fair outcomes for children
2. Protecting the vulnerable
3. Providing a clear and accessible framework
4. Preserving the distinct status of marriage

Who will be eligible?

Cohabitants are defined as two people living together as partners in an enduring family relationship. This means platonic flatmates will not be eligible for the scheme: a further potential blind spot, as these individuals may also have intertwined finances and shared possessions.

To access the protections offered, couples must have cohabited for at least three years, ensuring that those in short term relationships do not end up financially responsible for their partner without intent or commitment. This threshold will only be disregarded if the parties have a child together – ensuring the prioritisation of children’s needs.

If these requirements are met, cohabiting couples will automatically be eligible for remedy, regardless of their awareness of the legal system, somewhat actualising the belief in common law marriage and increasing accessibility.

What are the remedies?

Remedies will be determined by a “needs-based” approach. Firstly, children’s needs will be met. Next, the parties’ needs will be assessed on factors such as earning capacity and age – plus needs not directly linked to the relationship, such as the parties’ health, ensuring vulnerable parties have sufficient means to avoid hardship. This will be achieved through remedies such as property adjustment orders, lump sum orders, and pension sharing orders. Maintenance orders will only be awarded as a last resort in exceptional circumstances.

To maintain distinction from marriage, needs will be assessed more narrowly than in matrimonial proceedings, and the sharing principle will not be applied. This means that the assumption is not a 50/50 split. Instead, the framework creates an opportunity for financial provision where necessary.

Protection for the vulnerable

In their 2024 manifesto, Labour promised to “strengthen the rights and protections of women in cohabiting couples”.

Surviving Economic Abuse found that one in seven women risked victimisation from a partner in the last year. Yet, under the current law, there is no clear way to address the finances of cohabiting parties – other than splitting their property. Therefore, the proposal of a model that will ensure that ‘needs’ are met is vital to protect and enable these victims to recover.

A “compensation” factor (where one party has suffered a disadvantage for the benefit of another) is also suggested for assessing needs. Unfortunately, this is loosely defined by the consultation, which states that the Government are “particularly interested” in how abuse can be recognised in proceedings. However, no concrete suggestions are offered other than clarifying that any approach would be uniform with matrimonial proceedings.

Currently, the court may consider conduct (and therefore misconduct) if it would be inequitable to disregard it. However, the bar for misconduct is infamously high and will usually only affect a financial award when there has been a financial consequence. If this model were to be applied to cohabitation, victims of economic abuse may be able to recover some monies, but those who are victims of coercive control or wider behaviours may struggle to be fully compensated for the full scope of their victimisation.

Therefore, whilst these proposals are a vital step forward in increasing protection for vulnerable cohabitants, considering a problem and acting to fully address it are worlds apart. Hopefully, the consultation has gathered the information needed to develop a complete, future proposal to fulfil the manifesto’s promise.

What is the impact?

Whilst greater protection is necessary for many cohabitants (especially for victims of abuse), the framework proposed must also recognise that its subjects have chosen not to get married. Therefore, cohabitants should not find themselves with a legal obligation which equates to this.

These reforms are intended to reflect social change. However, most cohabitants are not seeking to deprive each other but instead wish to maintain financial independence, something marriage inherently hinders (albeit for admirable reasons). Where both parties are leading independent lives, the choice to split is often seen as the severance of responsibility. A fresh start.

A remedy model that automatically increases financial obligations could contradict cohabitants’ wishes. Therefore, the model risks failing to recognise the motivations for the societal change it intends to address. Could this lead to fewer couples choosing to cohabit, as fewer have chosen to marry, to maintain financial independence?

Admittedly, cohabiting couples do have the option to opt out of the framework if they mutually agree to do so. However, independent legal advice and financial disclosure would be required, incurring costs.

Should these proposals be implemented?

There are two clear (and perhaps conflicting) issues with the proposals. The reform could be too burdensome for most cohabiting couples whilst simultaneously too limited in scope for victims of abuse. Perfecting this pendulum swing is the greatest challenge these proposals face. And, whilst a perfect solution is perhaps unrealistic, I would urge those considering reform to weigh up these problems further before implementation.

A fairer end to relationships? Perhaps not yet.

Cohabitation agreements remain the best way to protect yourself and your partner if you are unmarried. Our team of family solicitors can help you set this up. Read more about why you might need a cohabitation agreement here.

If you’d like to speak to a member of our family law team, please get in touch at 0161 667 3686 or use the form below.