The Estate Registry (TER) welcomes the Government’s consultation on cohabitation rights and the wider debate about whether the law adequately reflects the way millions of people now live.
TER is a leading UK provider of estate planning and end-of-life admin services, including bereavement notification services NotifyNOW and Settld, and InheritNOW.
Howard Enders, Chief Operating Officer at The Estate Registry said: “As an organisation that deals extensively with estate planning, we have previously highlighted the need to update the UK’s legal and financial position to reflect modern patterns of family life and property ownership, The Estate Registry believes reform deserves serious consideration – but that any changes must be accompanied by clarity, public education and genuine informed choice.
“Cohabitating couples frequently believe they have similar financial rights to those who are married when it comes to separation or, sadly, a bereavement. Under the law in England and Wales that is not the case and many discover too late that a share of assets and pensions are not automatically inherited by the remaining partner.”
This consultation on cohabitation rights has prompted a sharp legal debate. Baroness Ruth Deech has warned that proposals for automatic legal rights for qualifying cohabitants could amount to a “profound constitutional change”, arguing that marriage and civil partnerships are legal relationships entered into by choice and questioning whether comparable obligations should arise without a positive act of consent.
Those concerns have been dismissed by lawyers, including Jo Edwards, chair of Resolution’s Family Law Reform Committee and partner and head of family at Forsters. Edwards argues that there is a clear democratic mandate for reform, pointing to the Labour manifesto commitment to strengthen protections for cohabiting couples and its endorsement at the general election.
Edwards also highlights the continuing public misunderstanding of cohabitation law. British Social Attitudes research has found that a substantial proportion of the public continues to believe in the so-called “common-law marriage”, despite no such legal status existing in England and Wales.
For reformers, that persistent misunderstanding is central to the case for change: people may reasonably assume that living together creates legal protections that simply do not exist.
The Estate Registry recognises the force of that argument. Enders said: “The reality is that family structures and financial arrangements have changed significantly, while the legal framework governing property, succession and relationship breakdown has not always kept pace.”
However, some legal professionals point to a fundamental distinction between marriage or civil partnership – legal statuses deliberately entered into – and a framework that could apply automatically when a couple satisfies qualifying criteria such as length of cohabitation or having a child together.
That distinction is particularly important where property and financial interests are concerned.
Enders continues: “The central question is not simply whether cohabiting couples should receive greater protection. It is whether people will understand when those protections arise, what they mean and how they can affect their property and financial position. Informed choice should, therefore, be at the heart of any reform.
“There is a compelling case for protecting people who may otherwise suffer significant financial disadvantage following the end of a long-term relationship, particularly where one partner has made substantial non-financial contributions or sacrificed earning capacity to support a household or children.
“At the same time, people who deliberately choose not to marry or enter a civil partnership may have made that decision because they do not want the legal consequences associated with formalised relationships. Any automatic framework must therefore make its boundaries, consequences and available opt-outs exceptionally clear.”
The consultation also raises legitimate questions about complexity. Introducing separate rules for married couples, civil partners, qualifying cohabitants, couples who opt out and other property arrangements could make an already misunderstood area of law harder for the public to navigate.
This is why The Estate Registry argues that legal reform and public education must go hand in hand.
Existing mechanisms, including declarations of trust, carefully drafted cohabitation agreements and appropriate estate planning, can provide important protection for couples who own property together or have financial commitments to one another. Greater awareness of these options should form part of any broader programme of reform.
With millions of couples living together outside marriage or civil partnership, the issue is no longer peripheral. The law must address the realities of contemporary households while preserving clarity about the choices individuals make and the financial consequences of those choices.
In conclusion, The Estate Registry says that the consultation provides an important opportunity to modernise the UK’s legal and financial position – but modernisation must be matched by transparency, education and informed consent.
