Millionen unverheirateter Paare fordern stärkere Rechte
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/millions-of-unmarried-couples-to-get-stronger-rights
Von ManOnlyLurks
Millionen unverheirateter Paare fordern stärkere Rechte
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/millions-of-unmarried-couples-to-get-stronger-rights
Von ManOnlyLurks
37 Kommentare
[removed]
[removed]
Why do they feel the need to repeatedly mention Women? Don’t these protections apply to both sexes?
[removed]
>The government is also proposing making pre-nuptial and post-nuptial agreements legally binding so people who choose to enter one can feel confident their financial wishes will be honoured if they divorce.
This is big if it comes to pass.
It’s just a consultation isn’t it? ‚Get stronger rights‘ makes it sound like a new law or reg is about to come in, when in reality they’re just gonna gather thoughts on the art of the possible?
„Ensuring bereaved partners are not left in limbo, the consultation will also look at levelling up protections for cohabiting couples by giving automatic rights to inherit if their partner dies without a will.“
This is a big one. If my partner suddenly dies I’m left with nothing, and vice versa. We’ve been discussing marriage for years but prioritised buying a house and making a life for our family.
„Bereaved unmarried partners will have automatic rights to inheritance if a partner dies without a will, reducing stress at one of life’s most difficult times.“
Eesh.
What if you’ve been living with someone for three years but it’s a fairly casual arrangement really and they have a home of their own and you’ve always intended for your property to go to your kids/your brother/whoever, and had that agreement with them, and you drop dead one day before you get round to making a will, and they renege on the agreement now you’re dead…?
[removed]
Sooo someone I live with that I choose to pay wholly for the mortgage not to create a beneficial interest… Can spend all their money on clothes, nails and holidays and enjoy a much higher standard of living because they have far more disposable income as don’t have to worry about bills so much…
They choose to not be interested in organising bills, saving accounts etc…
However if we break up, they’re entitled to half my property VALUE of £400k?? I then have to sell my home, give them £400k?? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
What the fuck is this.
I bought a house, paid for it for 12 years, every single penny, then had a partner move in a few years ago. I’ve offered to put them on the mortgage but they don’t want to pay more as they can’t afford it.
So now they could technically dump me, move out, then I’d have to sell my house to pay them off despite them not paying a single penny towards it?!
I would burn it down before doing that.
This government general approach to introducing very bad legislation has me worried.
[removed]
Great news. This is already the case in NZ and it works really well here. Kinda shocking it’s not the case in England to be honest. Don’t see what anyone’s complaining about. If you don’t agree with it, sign a prenup.
So my partner moved in with me, no mortgage and doesn’t pay bills. If we split I then have to sell my home even though she puts money in ISAs and other savings, this is ridiculous.
They messed up divorce industry so marriage rates dropped as not worth the risk of being left ruined
So now they are coming after non married as so many now refuse to get married
Fix the corruption in family law and people will get married more again
If people wanted strong rights and commitments to each other they’d spend the £100 and make it official.
If this all comes into law then the UK law system should take prenups more into account like other countries that have similar co habitation laws
Absolute no, unmarried co habitants shouldn’t have automatic inheritance rights. There’s already a process for genuine dependents which could be strengthened if needed.
We experienced this for pension pot. There it is at the discretion of the trustees and many prioritise unmarried partners.
It was actually traumatic. His causal girlfriend claimed she lived with him and was his „partner“. She actually used his address as a postal address, having a property abroad and so use these letters as proof. She didn’t even have a key. She knew he was ill and didn’t even check on him, yet alone live there. We suspect she might have been financially abusing him / cuckooing.
Disproving it was traumatic, and the process took over a year. We had to, repeatedly send and quote the cornorers report of how he died after collapsing alone, not being found and the police having to break in the door.
The reason I don’t plan to marry again is because my children would not inherit. Now I won’t even be able to live with someone because it will put their inheritance at risk. Even if I made a clear will, wills can be challenged in court thus making my children wait and also wasting their money on legal fees.
If you want to share your views with the lawmakers, the link to the consultation is [here](https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/a-fairer-end-to-relationships-consultation/consultation/)
Let’s look at how this works in Scotland.
>How Does the Court Decide on Payments?
>The court uses a fairness test based on:
>1. Economic Advantage
Has one partner gained financially during the relationship?
>2. Economic Disadvantage
Has the other suffered financially or missed out on opportunities?
>The court will assess whether:
>The advantage of one party is offset by the loss of the other.
Contributions include unpaid work such as childcare and housework.
https://www.xksolicitors.co.uk/cohabitation-claims-a-simple-summary/
The people in this comment section worried about being on the losing end of this are probably taking advantage of their partners.
I don’t want extra rights!!
I am a domestic abuse survivor that also experienced financial abuse from a man who refused to work and spent relentlessly. I was working 60 hours a week and earning over 50k to only just about being able to afford food for me and my child.
My only saving grace was that I owned the house in only my name.
These new „rights“ would have taken that away from me too, with no hope of escape.
Just filled in the public consultation
I would describe the wording as „intellectually hostile“
But that’s the point isn’t it, how can you disagree if half the questions are convoluted.
„For example under our plans, individuals could gain access to a share of a house sale to help secure their financial future.“
This does seem madness.
Especially as if say your friend or family member or partner lend you money with no contract and you refuse to pay it back the courts will say there’s no debt to be forced to pay back because you had no intent to create legal relations.
So many issues and this is paperwork they’re pushing. We’re cooked.
*Millions of unmarried women to get stronger rights. As per usual, to strip men of their assets.
As with any of their „consultations“, their mind is already made up and you’ll have zero say in what happens.
Also note the prominent use of ‘domestic abuse’ in the press release
In uk divorce women are encouraged to make false claims of abuse and they are then given more financially in return for doing this, it’s a racket.
Combined with introducing binding pre-nuptial agreements, you may actually want to get married to reduce your partner’s claim on your assets!
[removed]
So an accusation of abuse is all that’s required to steal someone’s property?
Can’t see that being misused. 🙄
„Stronger rights“
Turns out it translates to more money….
How would it even work? There is no paperwork to legislate your dating something…this will absolutely be instantly used for people’s greed.
This government reminding us every day why we should never vote Labour.
What’s the point? People can just get married if they want the benefits. Or a civil partnership. Costs £62 at the registry office and takes like an hour out of your day.
I really think that the concept of describing almost everything legal nowadays in terms of „rights“ needs to go.
The implication is that they are a universal good but invariably what it means is that someone is forced to do something against their will. It’s just formulated in such a way that the lawmakers consider it „obvious“ that there is a superior and inferior party e.g. a power dynamic.
It is almost always zero sum, and it’s almost always _removing_ agency from at least one party.
Look, if we are supposed to live in this accepting society where people can be gay, straight, polyamorous, married, unmarried, whatever, that’s great. But then surely, just leave people alone to make their own arrangements.
Making the claim that every way of living is acceptable and equal, and then making a system that says „if someone agrees to live their life this way, actually they can’t do that, the Government will step in and redistribute after the fact because they are somehow inferior beings not capable of looking after their own interests“, to me just seems like it’s… saying one thing and doing another.
It’s also just incredibly patronising.
I suspect one of the drivers behind the reform also is the large number of religious-only marriages that are not accompanied by a civil marriage.
There has been concern for years that many people in such relationships believe they are legally married when, in fact, they are not. I remember reading surveys suggesting that a substantial proportion of women in nikah-only marriages (something like 60%?) either assumed they had the same legal rights as married couples or were unaware that their marriage was not recognised by civil law.