Splitting up with someone you’ve lived with for years has always been a messy legal minefield in England and Wales.
Millions of people still buy into the persistent myth of the “common-law marriage”, assuming that sharing a roof, a sofa, and household bills for a decade gives them roughly the same safety net as a wedding band. In reality, the law treats unmarried partners almost like complete strangers; if your name isn’t on the property deeds or the bank account, you have no automatic claim to a penny when things go pear-shaped.
That stark divide could soon be shaken up. Ministers have been consulting on landmark proposals that would allow separating cohabitees to apply to the courts for a financial share of their ex-partner’s assets. The idea isn’t to mirror a standard divorce settlement, but to provide a safety net if walking away leaves one person facing severe hardship and unable to meet basic living costs. Here’s how the planned reforms could reshape cohabitation rights, who would actually qualify for help, and what it means if you currently share a home without a marriage certificate.
What rights cohabiting couples currently have
There’s a common misconception that living together for long enough automatically creates something like a “common law marriage.” It doesn’t, and research suggests nearly half the population in England and Wales wrongly believes otherwise. In reality, unmarried couples who separate have very limited legal protection.
According to Yael Selig, a family law specialist at Osbornes Law, someone with no legal ownership of their partner’s property has no automatic right to a share of it, even if they contributed financially to the household throughout the relationship. Disputes over a shared home currently fall under trust law instead, a route that tends to be considerably more complicated, expensive, and less generous than the financial remedies available through divorce. On top of that, unmarried partners also have no right to claim maintenance or any portion of their ex’s pension.
Who these new proposals would actually apply to
The proposed rules would cover adults in committed, interdependent romantic relationships who’ve lived together for at least three years, or couples who share a child together and have lived together for any length of time at all. The changes are largely aimed at protecting people who are financially exposed after a breakup, particularly women who gave up their career to raise the couple’s children, or victims of domestic abuse who found themselves financially trapped and unable to leave.
What the proposals would actually change
Under the plan, courts could step in when simply dividing assets based on legal ownership wouldn’t be enough to cover each partner’s basic needs. Judges would then distribute assets in a way that ensures both people can afford suitable housing and reasonable living costs, though luxuries and general comforts wouldn’t factor into that calculation. Children’s needs would take priority first, particularly making sure the primary caregiver has adequate resources, before the separating adults’ individual circumstances are considered. Courts would weigh each partner’s earning potential, financial resources, age, any disabilities, and how long the relationship actually lasted.
How the system would work in practice
These rights would apply automatically to eligible couples, though partners would have the option to opt out if they both agree to do so. That automatic default, rather than requiring couples to opt in, has become one of the most contested parts of the entire proposal. Anyone wanting to make a claim would need to apply to a court within two years of the relationship ending.
Courts would prioritise achieving a clean break wherever possible, settling eligible claims using capital rather than ongoing payments. Where that’s not achievable, courts would gain access to similar tools already used in divorce proceedings, including property adjustment orders, lump sum payments, and pension sharing orders, though not necessarily at the same scale as divorce settlements. Ongoing maintenance payments would only be granted in exceptional circumstances, such as serious illness or disability, and even then would run for a strictly defined, limited period with no option to extend.
How this differs from a divorce settlement
One of the most significant differences from divorce law is that there’d be no assumption of a 50-50 split. By default, each person keeps whatever they legally own, unless one partner can’t meet their basic needs without support. Those needs are also defined more narrowly than in divorce proceedings, specifically excluding any discretionary or luxury spending. Courts would place much greater emphasis on helping both parties transition toward financial independence, with maintenance available far more sparingly than it currently is through divorce.
One similarity the proposals do share with divorce law is that shorter relationships would likely attract more limited financial awards, meaning courts would be encouraged to distinguish between couples who’ve only just crossed the three-year threshold and those together for considerably longer.
What experts make of the proposed changes
Reaction from experts has been distinctly mixed. The chief executive of the charity Surviving Economic Abuse has welcomed the reforms, noting that most domestic abuse survivors support giving cohabiting partners stronger financial rights after separation, describing it as a rare opportunity to meaningfully improve the lives of victims and survivors.
Not everyone agrees, though. A former law professor and chair of the Bar Standards Board has criticised the plans as a significant constitutional change introduced without a clear public mandate, arguing that many people deliberately choose not to remarry precisely because they value both companionship and financial independence, and that the law should respect that choice rather than undermine it. She’s instead called for a voluntary opt-in system rather than the automatic approach currently being proposed.
A family law barrister offered a more measured take, acknowledging the proposal does increase risk for the financially stronger partner in a relationship, while offering real protection to the financially weaker partner, who may be disadvantaged due to illness, childcare responsibilities, or reduced assets resulting from economic abuse. She pointed out that a cohabiting partner’s home has always technically been subject to potential claims, but under these new proposals, those claims would be based not just on prior agreements between the couple, but on real need, specifically where a weaker partner would otherwise have nowhere to live without assistance.
She also noted the new rules are intended to strengthen the effectiveness of both prenuptial agreements and living together agreements, both useful tools for couples to formally consider what they’d want to happen in the event of separation, whether or not children are involved.
What you can do right now, regardless of the proposals
According to Selig, couples currently living together don’t need to wait around for this potential new law to gain some financial certainty. Drawing up a cohabitation agreement now, one that clearly records what’s been agreed regarding property, finances, and what would happen if the relationship ended, offers real protection immediately.
Making a will is described as arguably the single most important step unmarried couples can take, since without one, a surviving partner could legally inherit nothing at all if the other person were to die. Beyond that, couples who jointly own property are also encouraged to draw up a declaration of trust, a document that clearly sets out each person’s respective share of ownership and can help prevent costly, drawn-out disputes further down the line.
