Cohabitation is not a phrase commonly used outside of the family law context. Generally, ‘living together’ is the preferred expression. In the UK today, more people than ever are living with someone else, whether that’s a sibling, friends, house-shares or with a romantic partner. This is all known as cohabitation. In romantic relationships, the popularity of marriage is decreasing, more couples are living together long term, and even those who do get married are waiting later. In many cases, this is a choice. However, often, it is a choice that is not made with all the relevant information at hand, and it’s only when it is ‘too late’ that couples discover that matters are not as straightforward as they believed.
The Government’s consultation ‘A fairer end to relationships’, running from 5th June to 14th August 2026, explores the reality of cohabitation for couples.
The key elements are:
- Financial recourse on separation: Currently, unmarried partners have no automatic financial claims on their ex-partner after separation
- Property rights: As with financial rights, unmarried partners have no automatic right to property if their name is not on the deeds, regardless of household contribution
- Vulnerable partners: Many financially vulnerable individuals are trapped in unhappy or abusive relationships due to their financial dependence on their partner
- Inheritance rights: Should one partner die without a will in place, their bereaved partner has no automatic right to their estate
As the law in England and Wales stands, there is no legal protective framework for unmarried partners on separation or on death, despite cohabiting couples being the fastest growing family type in the UK, with 3.5million couples now living together unmarried.
The Government has responded to repeated calls from legal practitioners and the Law Commission to amend the structure for cohabiting couples, to give them greater protection, bringing them more in line with married couples. However, financial, property and inheritance rights would be narrower than those afforded to married couples on divorce, to preserve marriage as a distinct institution.
You can read more about the Government’s cohabitation reform proposals in our latest advice.
Should cohabitation laws be reformed?
Family law has not kept up with the pace of social change. The way families are structured, shift, and blend is so different now than it was 20 or 30 years ago. Yet our legal frameworks are not up to the challenging demand when these families break down.
Cohabitation law essentially does not exist in the UK at the moment. There is no such thing as a ‘common law marriage’ and there are no rights that enable financially vulnerable parties to leave a relationship without fear. Currently, the only financial recourse unmarried partners have fall under:
- Trust of Lands and Appointment of Trustees Act (TOLATA): Unmarried partners can claim a beneficial interest in property through a complex and often expensive court process
- Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989: This part of the act means that the law does not distinguish between married and unmarried parents in ensuring children’s wellbeing. Parents can claim financial relief from the wealthier party in order to support their children
Financial vulnerability is one of the major concerns in any relationship breakdown, particularly since the cost-of-living crisis and the ongoing price increases in the UK. Even within marriages, financially dependent parties remain married far longer than they want to as they fear they cannot afford to survive on a sole income. For unmarried couples, this risk is even greater, particularly where individuals are experiencing domestic abuse, which is why a structured, clear and effective framework of protections should be put in place.
This is all the more concerning in cases where one party dies intestate. Intestacy rules therefore apply, completely excluding partners who could have lived with the deceased for decades, contributing to households, raising children and generally sharing a life together. Any children of the couple would be prioritised under intestacy law, but legally the bereaved partner has no right to inherit. The Government has proposed giving qualifying unmarried partners the same rights as spouses or civil partners, based on a recommendation by the Law Commission.
The reality is that family lawyers see the consequences of the current law every day. People can spend decades building a life together, making joint financial decisions, raising children and sacrificing careers to support their family, only to discover that has no relevance and creates no obligations when the relationship ends. That disconnect between modern family life and the law is difficult to justify.
Any potential law reform is not about making cohabitation the same as marriage. It is about recognising that where one person has become financially disadvantaged through the choices made during a relationship, there should be a fair mechanism for the courts to address that. This seems like a sensible evolution of family law rather than a radical departure from it.
Marriage and civil partnership should continue to carry additional legal rights and responsibilities. Those relationships represent a deliberate legal commitment. But the absence of marriage should not mean the complete absence of protection where genuine financial vulnerability exists.
Overall, it seems the Government has struck a sensible balance. The proposals stop well short of creating ‘common law marriage’ while acknowledging that the current law leaves too many people exposed. The challenge will be ensuring the qualifying criteria are clear enough that people can understand when the protections apply, without generating years of expensive litigation over the meaning of concepts such as an ‘enduring family relationship’.
Why should cohabitation laws remain as they are?
Reforming cohabitation law has been on the agenda of family law practitioners for years. Day-to-day, we see the fallout of family breakdown and the concerning position too many people are left in with no recourse, despite years of living as if married (and even believing they have the same rights as marriage) and financial, emotional and practical contributions to a shared household and life. The calls for reform have been driven by the desire to protect vulnerable parties when relationships end, whether through separation or death.
However, there is the potential that introducing a new framework which reflects the one given to married couples and civil partners undermines one of the key distinctions in relationship types: Choice. Couples who decide not to marry or enter into a civil partnership may do so for a variety of personal, financial or philosophical reasons. Many see marriage as an outdated institution, aligning with patriarchal, traditional and religious structures that don’t apply to their daily existence. Automatically imposing legal rights and obligations on cohabitants could erode that autonomy by attaching legal consequences to relationships that never wanted them in the first place.
The existing framework that distinctly differentiates between marriage/civil partnership and cohabitation does provide a degree of certainty, as there are long-standing rights relating to the major issues including finances, inheritance and property (noting that child arrangements are not managed differently based on the relationship status of the parents). Cohabitation does not share these rights.
While this distinction can produce difficult outcomes in individual cases, it also enables people to make informed decisions about the legal commitments they wish to undertake. Law reform that creates a middle ground between marriage and cohabitation risks blurring these boundaries, creating a ‘marriage by the back door’ issue. At the moment, rights are clearly defined. Cohabitation reform could increase disputes between unmarried couples based on whether qualifying conditions have been met, particularly if the language is vague.
It could be argued that perhaps the greatest failing is not simply the law itself, but the public’s misunderstanding of it. The myth of the ‘common law marriage’ remains remarkably widespread despite decades of attempts by family lawyers to correct it. Many couples make life-changing decisions – whether to leave work to care for children, make financial sacrifices or choose not to marry – on the mistaken belief that the law already protects them.
Whatever reforms emerge from this consultation, they must be accompanied by a significant public education campaign. A better legal framework will only improve outcomes if people understand what it does – and, just as importantly, what it does not do.
What happens next?
Family law should reflect the way people live today, not the way society looked decades ago. The Government is right to examine whether the law has kept pace with changing family structures.
However, reform should not come at the expense of clarity. The legislation needs to be straightforward enough to be accessible and understandable so that couples can have a degree of certainty when they make life choices. The courts also need clear statutory guidance to avoid years of uncertainty while new case law develops.
The answer is not to create marriage by another name. It is to provide proportionate protection for genuinely vulnerable people while preserving marriage and civil partnership as distinct legal institutions. That balance is achievable, but only if the final legislation is carefully drafted and supported by meaningful public education. Without that, we risk replacing one misunderstanding with another.
Finally, if these reforms do proceed, one of the key elements should be determining whether couples can opt out of the statutory regime through a properly drafted agreement. The ability to do so, or at least limit claims, aligns with the suggested approach to nuptial agreements for those who do choose to marry, and balances personal autonomy with protecting vulnerable people.
Keep reading
What’s the legal reality of living together before marriage?
What to consider when buying a house together, but you’re not married
