![](\"https:\/\/www.familylawweek.co.uk\/bin_1\/bannertest6.jpg\")
<\/a><\/div>\nHome<\/a> > News<\/a><\/p>\n A group of cross-party MPs is demanding reforms to laws which, they say, leave cohabiting couples with ‘inferior’ protections to those who have formally married or have obtained a civil partnership. With cohabitating couples representing the fastest growing family type in England and Wales, the Women and Equalities Committee’s new Report \u2013 The rights of cohabiting partners<\/em><\/strong><\/a><\/strong> \u2013 highlights the risks faced, often by women, upon relationship breakdown or the death of a partner.<\/p>\n In the 25 years since 1996, the number of couples living together as cohabitants has more than doubled to 3.6 million, representing around one in five couples living together in the UK today. Despite this, the committee notes that a lack of legal protections means that, upon relationship breakdown, the financially weaker partner has no automatic rights to the family home. Instead, they rely on complicated property law and trusts principles and outdated legislation regarding child support.\u00a0 <\/p>\n The MPs also express concern at the distressing processes involved in accessing a survivor’s pension \u2013 and indeed, keeping the family home \u2013 upon the death of a partner, where no formal marriage or civil partnership has taken place.\u00a0\u00a0 <\/p>\n One of the largest issues, finds the report, is the common misconception that cohabiting couples automatically gain rights equal to a marriage or civil partnership \u2013 the so-called ‘common law marriage myth’. Forty-six per cent of those in England and Wales assume cohabitants living together form a ‘common law marriage’, rising to 55 per cent of households with children. This erroneous belief can have ‘significant consequences’, with many falsely believing they have legal protections which turn out to be non-existent.\u00a0\u00a0 <\/p>\n The report’s key recommendations are:\u00a0\u00a0 <\/p>\n \u2022\u00a0The Government should implement an opt-out cohabitation scheme, as proposed by the Law Commission in 2007. This new scheme would allow couples to disapply the legal framework granted to them if they wished, which would give them autonomy while protecting financially vulnerable individuals. It would also provide certainty on the definition of a ‘cohabitant’, as there is currently no single, legal definition.<\/p>\n \u2022\u00a0Concerned about the prevalence of the common law marriage myth, the Committee call on the Government to urgently launch a public information campaign to highlight the legal distinctions between marriage, civil partnership, and choosing to live as cohabiting partners. The Government must also undertake a targeted information campaign for women in religious communities, highlighting the risks of having a wedding ceremony which does not meet legal formalities.<\/p>\n \u2022\u00a0Cohabitants must have the right to inherit the family home after the death of a partner and without the obligation to pay an inheritance tax bill. The Government must implement the recommendations made by the Law Commission in 2011, which would provide cohabitants with the right to inherit under the intestacy rules. It must also review the inheritance tax scheme so that cohabiting partners are placed on an equal footing to married couples and civil partners. Furthermore, clear guidelines should be published, setting out how pension schemes should treat surviving cohabiting partners.<\/p>\n For the report, click here<\/strong><\/a><\/strong>. For a summary, click here<\/strong><\/a><\/strong>. For the report’s conclusions and recommendations, click here<\/strong><\/a><\/strong>. <\/p>\n 5\/8\/22<\/p>\n
\n<\/div>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/dominiclevent.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/footer-300x100.png\")
<\/a>