Cohabitation rights.

[HayMaker]

If someone allows a sofa-surfing friend or lodger to use their address for correspondence then do they become effectively married?

Surely both parties would have to sign and declare that they are in a substantive relationship? I don't think a dodgy lodger could claim they've been having it away with the landlord for financial gain, unless said landlord also declared so?

I do think a quick and easy online legally recognised union is needed though. Me and my partner are both divorced, been together 8 years and living together for nearly 3. I object to having a civil ceremony or a wedding in order that our agreed financial and fiscal arrangements are upheld. At the moment it all seems like a racket i.e. you can't just leave instructions or money to anyone without paying through the nose to some solicitor. There should be some element of self-service online, now that digital passports and photos etc are a thing, and can be used between various bodies like passport and DVSA. Yes there is space for fraud and exploitation, but I think that's always been the case

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

When treated the same as a married couple after 3 years the house becomes a second home just like it would have been if they were married.

This sounds like a completely logical thought process to me.

If you're officially a couple then you both obviously share a principal residence. So any other home sold would be subject to CGT.

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

Surely both parties would have to sign and declare that they are in a substantive relationship? I don't think a dodgy lodger could claim they've been having it away with the landlord for financial gain, unless said landlord also declared so?

I do think a quick and easy online legally recognised union is needed though. Me and my partner are both divorced, been together 8 years and living together for nearly 3. I object to having a civil ceremony or a wedding in order that our agreed financial and fiscal arrangements are upheld. At the moment it all seems like a racket i.e. you can't just leave instructions or money to anyone without paying through the nose to some solicitor. There should be some element of self-service online, now that digital passports and photos etc are a thing, and can be used between various bodies like passport and DVSA. Yes there is space for fraud and exploitation, but I think that's always been the case

This proposal blurs the lines between married and not. It's a solicitor's dream, they'll be able to argue that two people were a couple because they bought shared milk or all kinds of stupid things.

You can get married however you like. Jeans and trainers is absolutely fine if you both want that. No need for speeches, rings, a stag night or any of that stuff. You're just signing a contract.

If you only have two guests (witnesses) then you pay a lot less. Three or more adds a few £100 to the cost, sadly.

 

[aveatry]

This sounds like a completely logical thought process to me.

If you're officially a couple then you both obviously share a principal residence. So any other home sold would be subject to CGT.

Yes and the nut job wants to see the exact paragraph that says that - well of course the government are not going to publicise that bit are they if they want to get it through but its a logical outcome of the couple being treated the same as a married couple - yours or hers/his original house will suddenly become a second home.
There must be thousands of couples that have their own home each and one person decides to move in with the other but until they marry or this new cohabitation thing comes in it is still their own separate home. Then remember that the government wants to equalise CGT with income tax lower rate, so when the house is sold you will be paying 20% CGT on any increase in price from when you brought it to when you sell it- less any selling and buying costs or inprovements.

 

[motorbiking]

The idea of clarifying partner's rights is to reduce the potential for court proceedings
Inyou opinion it will exacerbate the number of court proceedings. That's just your opinion and nor supported with any data.


In a long-term relationship, do people really avoid marrying in order to avoid dividing the assets on seperation?
Then why not draw up a pre-Nuptial Agrreement?


Currently, if they had married the assets would be split. See above.
I'm sure neither partner entered the relationship with that in mind.
Perhaps you should be more careful with your choice of partners.

1. No clarification was needed. Not marriage no right to the other person’s assets. It’s the way it’s been for decades.
2. If you do nothing you expose yourself to a claim if the relationship ends. If you want to opt out you need a lawyer each to certify your opt out agreement. It’s mandatory. So two new revenue streams for family law firms.
3 40% of marriages, fail. Lots of people don’t marry because they don’t want the risk and cost of divorce.

 

[motorbiking]

This sounds like a completely logical thought process to me.

If you're officially a couple then you both obviously share a principal residence. So any other home sold would be subject to CGT.

I’ve not seen this in the proposals. Nor changes to inheritance tax.

 

[motorbiking]

This proposal blurs the lines between married and not. It's a solicitor's dream, they'll be able to argue that two people were a couple because they bought shared milk or all kinds of stupid things.

You can get married however you like. Jeans and trainers is absolutely fine if you both want that. No need for speeches, rings, a stag night or any of that stuff. You're just signing a contract.

If you only have two guests (witnesses) then you pay a lot less. Three or more adds a few £100 to the cost, sadly.

It’s not the marriage that is expensive. It’s the divorce.

 

[aveatry]

I’ve not seen this in the proposals. Nor changes to inheritance tax.

Its a bit like a budget when they stand up and announce - they only give the highlights and the detail is in the published document.
But if they are treating 3 year cohabitants the same as a married couple then that is what will happen. There have been stories where someone is about to get married and they realise that they are going to get stung very badly by the second home tax position so it is actually cheaper for them to cancel the wedding and looses deposits rather than pay the tax on the second home - as it would have become. But there is no option to cancel the 3 year automatic cohabitation.
Unless one of them moves back into their original home - but for how long, and then would that set the cohabitation 3 year clock back to day 1 or would there have to be a clause that you can not move back in within 1 year or something and how do you "police" that.
I dont se how any of this would work in practice.

 

[motorbiking]

It would make sense for them to split their time between each home.

 

[aveatry]

It would make sense for them to split their time between each home.

It would but it depends how far they are apart - jobs - friends - scummy area for one of them- one is a bigger house / better garden.

 

[King Billy]

Yes and the nut job wants to see the exact paragraph that says that -

Aveatry speak for, "it doesn't exist, and I've added that from my imagination".

well of course the government are not going to publicise that bit are they

So how come you've seen it?

if they want to get it through but its a logical outcome of the couple being treated the same as a married couple - yours or hers/his original house will suddenly become a second home.

Married couple now have two years before any tax restrictions kick in.
It isn't an immediate restriction.

There must be thousands of couples that have their own home each and one person decides to move in with the other but until they marry or this new cohabitation thing comes in it is still their own separate home. Then remember that the government wants to equalise CGT with income tax lower rate, so when the house is sold you will be paying 20% CGT on any increase in price from when you brought it to when you sell it- less any selling and buying costs or inprovements.

There must be thousands of couples who have gone down this route when they married. Why should there be a legal loophole for cohabiting couples?

 

[motorbiking]

Why should there be a legal loophole for cohabiting couples?

It’s the way it’s always been. No transfer of tax allowances, no right to inheritance tax free. They are two legally separate entities because….

… they aren’t married.

 

[aveatry]

Aveatry speak for, "it doesn't exist, and I've added that from my imagination".
So how come you've seen it?
Married couple now have two years before any tax restrictions kick in.
It isn't an immediate restriction.
There must be thousands of couples who have gone down this route when they married. Why should there be a legal loophole for cohabiting couples?

I am not interested in engaging with nut jobs with a pathological narcissistic personality disorder living in a French mental institution.

 

[King Billy]

I am not interested in engaging with nut jobs with a pathological narcissistic personality disorder living in a French mental institution.

More aveatry speak for I imagined it.

 

[King Billy]

It’s the way it’s always been. No transfer of tax allowances, no right to inheritance tax free. They are two legally separate entities because….

… they aren’t married.

And now the government is considering harmonising the arrangements. Why not?
Perhaps those that want the ease of exit from a cohabiting existence with no financial penalties worry they're losing their freedom to have a long line of live-in lovers.