Our Family team can help you with all aspects of Cohabitation law. Our solicitors ensure that you are fully aware of your legal rights pertaining to living together with a partner as an unmarried couple.
Contact UsManchester 0161 832 2500 | London City 0204 505 8080 | London Finchley 020 8349 0321
Secure PaymentOur Family team can help you with all aspects of Cohabitation law. Our solicitors ensure that you are fully aware of your legal rights pertaining to living together with a partner as an unmarried couple.
Contact UsLearn about how we help people day in day out with their cohabitation law cases with our skilled solicitors here at BBS Law.
Cohabitation refers to two individuals living together as a couple in a familial structure akin to marriage or a civil partnership, without undergoing a formal marriage ceremony or entering into a civil partnership.
There is no specific family legislation that addresses all aspects of relationship breakdowns for cohabiting couples.
Cohabitation law aims to regulate relationships and provide guidance on property and financial matters, one crucial aspect of this law is the establishment of a cohabitation agreement. The cohabitation agreement helps to define the rights and responsibilities of each partner, particularly concerning property ownership and financial arrangements if the couple separates.
Cohabitation is governed by various laws concerning property ownership, financial provision for children, and children law. The Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 addresses property ownership issues, while Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 covers financial provision for children, including housing and necessary cash sums.
Given the complexities of cohabitation law, at BBS Law we strongly recommended seeking early legal advice.
Understanding property ownership rights and the financial provisions for children can prevent potential disputes and provide clarity on each partner’s legal standing.
When it comes to the legally binding nature of cohabitation agreements, those of which regulate financial and property matters between separated couples, are generally upheld if they are fair and both parties have received independent legal advice.
These agreements usually cover property ownership and clarify the couple’s intentions during their cohabitation. However, they should not attempt to regulate private activities or future child care arrangements, as their enforceability in these areas is limited.
The Cohabitation Rights Bill 2023, proposed by Lord Marks, seeks to reform cohabitation law according to the 2007 Law Commission recommendations. It aims to provide cohabitants without children, who have lived together for a specified period, with rights to financial provision similar to those for married couples.
Cohabitants with children would automatically have these rights.
The bill also includes provisions for opt-out agreements and cohabitation agreements. However, without government support, its success remains uncertain.
The financial provision for children extends beyond regular child maintenance as regulated by the Child Maintenance Service (CMS). Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 allows for applications to the Family Court for housing and lump sum orders to benefit the children.
This provision ensures that the living arrangements and financial needs of the children and the parents they reside with are adequately addressed until they reach adulthood.
Determining ownership of the family home is a significant concern for cohabiting couples. Legal ownership must be clearly established through documentation. In cases where ownership is not explicitly defined, the principles of trusts law come into play, where the couple’s intentions regarding ownership are considered decisive.
The Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 allows for declarations of ownership, which are crucial in calculating ownership shares during a sale or buyout.
If the house is not jointly owned, a partner does not have automatic rights to live in it. When one partner owns the home outright, establishing rights to remain in the house after separation can be challenging, except in cases where an occupation order is granted due to abusive behaviour.
Without marriage or a civil partnership, a partner’s rights are generally limited. However, an application can be made to remain in the house for an initial six months, which can be extended once to a total of twelve months.
There is no specific number of nights to define cohabitation. Living together full-time in the same home as if married qualifies as cohabitation. Couples spending nights at each other’s homes need to consider the frequency and extent of their stays to determine cohabitation status. Evidence of a physically intimate relationship and shared financial arrangements, such as applying for a mortgage, also supports cohabitation.
Contrary to common belief, no automatic legal rights are acquired by living together for two years. However, a bereaved cohabitant can claim reasonable financial provision if they lived together for over two years and are not covered by the deceased’s will. Proposals to reform cohabitation law suggest rights similar but more limited than those for married couples, though these are not yet law.
Cohabitation proof involves evidence that a couple lives together, relevant under social security and housing legislation. It can impact benefit entitlements and is significant in determining the relationship length for financial settlements on divorce or dissolution. Establishing cohabitation is simpler with a cohabitation agreement, which clarifies living arrangements and financial responsibilities.
We take the time to get to know our clients and their businesses, and we work collaboratively with them to achieve their goals.
Meet Our TeamsNeeding a lawyer in a different country was a bit overwhelming living in the US. Gemma Barnhurst was lovely to work with. She put me at ease and provided good counsel. I am glad I was referred to BBS Law by a friend and would recommend them to anyone else needing similar services.
BBS Law represented a father who has sole care of the parties’ two-year-old son. The mother had returned to Taiwan, her home country and did not have consistent contact with the child. Given the father was in possession of the…