Lauren* was in her early thirties and living in South Wales when a whirlwind romance took her by surprise. Within weeks of meeting her new partner they were living together, though they took this step without any discussion about what it might mean for their finances or their future.
“He moved in through the backdoor,” she remembers. “He kind of just stayed over a lot. These things tend to happen quite organically, not necessarily with a decision. You’re in the moment and you don’t really realise.”
Lauren’s new partner moved into her property, a three-bedroom house which she owned. For a time, he left his own home empty and then eventually sold it, putting the savings he recouped into his own private bank account. He wasn’t contributing to any bills for the home they were sharing.
Soon after, Lauren fell unexpectedly pregnant and the couple decided to keep the baby. But after almost three years together, while their child was still a baby, the relationship fell apart irreparably and her ex moved out. A decade later, he is no longer involved in the raising of her son, but Lauren feels chilled by what could have been: under new laws now being considered by the Government, her ex could have also had rights over her property and her finances.
The Government is consulting on changes to the law to ensure it catches up with changes to our society. There are now more than 2.8 million cohabiting families in England and Wales – that’s three in 10 couples, rising to more than third in some parts of London – who do not have the same legal protection as married couples of civil partners if they split up. Almost 40 per cent of those families include dependent children.
New laws being considered would give separating couples similar rights to those going through divorce once they had been living together for three years. This will make it much easier for splitting parents to get a fair financial deal, particularly if couples have been together a long time and their family finances have been combined. It gives protection to mums in long-term relationships who may work part-time and miss out on pension contributions while raising children.
But the new rules will mean young people who end up living together, without making a big commitment to each other, could end up facing claims on their cash by ex-partners. With the cost of living rising, people are living together quickly to save money. Parents who gift a house deposit to their children could also find that investment at risk if their child moves a partner into their home. Under the proposals, anyone could make a financial claim if they are over the age of 18 and have lived with a partner for three years.
Clare Radcliffe, a partner in family law at Mishcon de Reya, says the proposed rules have been campaigned for actively over decades and will benefit long-term, committed couples, but she worries there has been too little thought about those who could get accidentally caught up in the changes.
“Nobody thinks about this at the beginning of a relationship,” she says. “Relationships aren’t fixed from the outset, they develop and people end up in a very different situation from the one they envisaged. Younger people are living together to save costs who have no intention to form a long-term committed relationship. And there may be those who have already been divorced, and do not want future financial litigation, who could be adversely affected.”
Emma Hackett started her adult life on the financial backfoot after splitting from her partner of seven years, with whom she shared a homeRadcliffe believes that 18 is far too young for such a serious law to apply. “You can, when you’re young, have some relationship-generated disadvantage. But when you’re young it’s easier to get back on your feet. You’ve got years to get your career going and get your pension back up,” she says.
An opt-out procedure, allowing new partners to confirm they do not want the other to have any rights, is also included in the plans. But Radcliffe is concerned that if the law does come into effect, people will not receive enough education about it to make an informed decision before they move in with someone. “We know this is an area where people don’t have the right information, which is why common law marriage is a myth that people still believe in,” she says, meaning the myth that living together for a long time or having children gives you the same legal rights as a married couple.
Some who lost out when young relationships ended believe the new rules would have given them the confidence to ask for what they deserved at the ending of a relationship. Emma Hackett ended a seven-year relationship when she was just 27. “I was deeply invested. It was the whole of my twenties. We tried to make it work, but it was clear it wasn’t working, and I had so much guilt surrounding that. When I walked away, I was happy to walk away with the bare minimum though everyone said I could have had half. I was too worried to fight and get more.”
Despite owning a property with her ex – which she put £8,000 towards the deposit for, spent £1,000 on furniture and spent time decorating – she took just £8,000 on departing. Now aged 50, she regrets starting her adult life on the financial back foot. “Looking back. I probably should have fought harder for that and took what I’d invested really, both emotionally and financially. But if you’re cohabiting you don’t think like that; if you’re married it’s different,” she says. “If there was a law in place and you both knew and assumed that, if you do part ways, it will be split equally then you would just go for that. I probably should have been owed £16,000 if it had been sold and the profit split equally.”
Cohabitation agreements – a legal document signed by both parties before moving in together – are already becoming more popular but Radcliffe says they will become essential if the new law is ratified. A Ministry of Justice consultation on the proposals closed in August.
Though she could have lost out under the proposed cohabitation law, Lauren says something needs to be done to correct a system which leaves families unaware of their rights. “We need to simplify all parts of the legal system to make it fairer for all,” she says. “Legally as a country, we don’t necessarily even hold up prenups in court. It all needs to be simple because, if people are moving in because of cost, then they’re not going to be able to spend hundreds on a solicitor. They need to be able to just download something for £35.”
Hence then, the article about i spent 9 000 buying a house with my ex but lost my investment as we weren t married was published today ( ) and is available on inews ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( I spent £9,000 buying a house with my ex – but lost my investment as we weren’t married )
Also on site :
- WWE RAW (August 31, 2026) - Roman Reigns to appear; Raquel Rodriguez vs Sol Ruca & more set for next week
- Walmart’s ‘Rustic and Elegant’ 16-Piece Stoneware Dinnerware Set Brings Coastal Farmhouse Charm to Your Table
- We Asked Registered Dietitians the Best Fruit To Eat Every Day To Lower Blood Pressure and They All Said the Same Thing