FAMILY LAW // Financial Protection for Unmarried Couples and Families
Cohabiting couples are the fastest-growing family type in the UK, yet the law still treats them, on separation, as if they were strangers. In a forthright conversation with Olivia Piercy, Partner at Hunters Law LLP and a recognised advocate for victim-survivors of domestic abuse, we explored why the system fails families, what reform should look like, and the practical steps you can take today to protect yourself and your children.
The fastest-growing family type in Britain is also the least protected by British law. Cohabiting couples, people who share homes, bank transfers, children, and decades, are treated as legal strangers when they separate. There is no family-law framework to consider needs, caregiving, or the economic reality of a shared life. Instead, the system shunts them into the County Court under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), a regime conceived for business disputes. When “mi casa, su casa” collapses, the law reaches for a ledger, not a welfare lens.
You can hear the human cost in the stories that surface at the end of love. One partner paid school fees, food shops, and childcare, while the other paid the mortgage and kept the pension: guess whose name is on the title, and whose labour is largely invisible to the court? The home, often the family’s only serious asset, becomes the battleground, and the statute that governs it (the trusts of land framework known as TLATA) asks not what a fair outcome would be for a family, but what can be proved about ownership. WhatsApp logs, not welfare, decide where a child sleeps.
This mismatch is not a quirk; it is a design choice. Married couples or civil partners resolve their finances within a family-law system that can, however imperfectly, recognise caregiving and need. Unmarried couples must litigate like warring neighbours. The result is predictably gendered. Economic abuse, controlling access to money, obscuring assets, weaponising information, shows up in case after case. Women, more likely to take career breaks and shoulder unpaid care, too often leave with neither the house nor a compensating share of assets, because the law refuses to see their contribution in family terms.
The myth of “common-law marriage” worsens the damage. It does not exist in England and Wales. Ten, 20, even 30 years under the same roof grants you no automatic financial claims against a partner’s property or pension on separation. Die without a Will, and your cohabiting partner may inherit nothing. Legally speaking, love without paperwork is a handshake with a trapdoor.
Family lawyers have been saying this for years. In a recent conversation, Olivia Piercy, Partner at Hunters Law LLP and a noted advocate for victim-survivors of domestic abuse, put it plainly: “We are shoving half of the families in the country as second-class citizens into a non-family court, with procedures meant for business partners and warring neighbours.” She is right. The CPR does not centre welfare, is not calibrated to identify coercive control, and carries punitive cost risks for those who misstep without specialist advice. It is the wrong tool for the job.
Some fixes are technical but telling. Title matters: joint tenants vs. tenants in common; deeds of trust that record true shares; cohabitation agreements drafted with independent legal advice and full financial disclosure; Wills and life insurance that match reality. Paper trails matter too. Contributions toward renovations or the mortgage should be documented: what did both partners intend those payments to mean? In County Court fights, precision beats sentiment. And yet none of this answers the core question: why should the families most in need of a welfare-sensitive system be denied one?
Reformers have a blueprint. Move cohabitation disputes into the Family Court. Create a clear statutory scheme that recognises needs, caregiving, and the economic texture of modern family life. Establish a default protection after specified triggers, years of cohabitation, birth or adoption of a child, demonstrable interdependence, balanced by a robust opt-out for those who value contractual autonomy. Build domestic and economic abuse literacy into the rules governing disclosure, costs, and case management, to curb litigation abuse and the strategic starvation of resources.
This is hardly radical abroad. Canada, Australia, and New Zealand broadly treat qualifying long-term relationships similarly to marriages on separation. Scotland already offers limited protections beyond England and Wales. If the concern is paternalism, the solution is not to wash the state’s hands but to recognise that “autonomy” is often a legal fiction in the shadow of coercion, financial dependency, and information asymmetry. A meaningful opt-out respects freedom without abandoning fairness.
Critics will ask: why should the state impose obligations on people who chose not to marry? Because the state already regulates families; it simply does so selectively. It recognises caregiving, dependency, and need for the married, while pretending none of this exists for the unmarried, even when the factual matrix is identical. That is an incoherent moral stance and an indefensible policy choice. If the goal is to reduce conflict, poverty, and the long-tail costs of family breakdown, then a system that sees families as families, rather than as defective businesses, is fiscal prudence as well as basic justice.
Legislative momentum is possible. There are encouraging noises about cohabitation reform, but families cannot live on noises. In the meantime, couples shouldn’t wait for Parliament to save them. If you’re buying together, decide explicitly whether you are joint tenants or tenants in common, and why. If shares are not fifty-fifty, say so in a deed of trust. If contributions will change over time with career breaks, renovations, or childcare for instance, write down how that affects shares and set a date to review. Sign a cohabitation agreement with independent legal advice and full financial disclosure; you cannot conjure “spousal” rights that the law does not recognise, but you can lock in property outcomes and practical arrangements. Make Wills. Align life insurance, pension nominations, and letters of wishes with the reality you intend.
And if you cannot safely discuss money, that is not a budgeting issue; it is a safeguarding issue. Seek specialist support. The most sophisticated legal instrument in the world will not protect someone who cannot use it without harm.
We should be candid about what this debate is and is not. It is not an argument against marriage or for it. It is not a crusade to smuggle divorce law into every household. It is a demand that the law match the country it governs: one where millions form families outside marriage, raise children, and share lives and liabilities over decades. If the legal system cannot see them, they will continue to fall through it.
The British talent for muddling through has its virtues. In this corner of the law, it has become a vice. Families are not businesses; breakups are not contract rows; WhatsApp is not a welfare metric. Put cohabiting families in the Family Court. Give them a framework that recognises reality. Keep a dignified opt-out for those who want it. And stop pretending that love without paperwork is a harmless private choice. In today’s Britain, it is a public policy failure with a very personal bill.
What you can do now (without waiting for Parliament)
1) Buy (or hold) property intentionally
Choose ownership structure:
- Joint tenants = each owns 100%; on death, the survivor takes it all automatically.
- Tenants in common = defined shares (equal or not); your share passes under your Will.
Use a Deed of Trust: Record your respective shares and what happens if you sell or one partner invests more later.
Cohabitation Agreement:
- Get independent legal advice on both sides and financial disclosure for enforceability.
- You can’t create “spousal” rights that don’t exist, but you can agree shares, repayment of contributions, and practical arrangements.
- Build review dates because lives change.
2) Paper the reality continuously
After any money or labour goes in (e.g., paying the mortgage, funding renovations):
- Confirm in writing what you both intend that to mean (e.g., “this builds my beneficial interest of X%”).
- Emails are better than nothing; WhatsApp trails often become evidence.
3) Future-proof the “what-ifs”
Make (and update) Wills. If one of you dies without a Will and the house is in their name, the other may receive nothing automatically.
Life insurance + expression of wishes to protect housing stability for the caregiving parent and children.
Pensions: nominate beneficiaries; understand you don’t share pensions on cohabitation as you might on divorce.
4) Safety first
If you cannot safely have a financial conversation, that’s a red flag. Seek specialist advice (legal and safeguarding).
Keep independent records: income, transfers, bank statements, invoices for works, childcare costs, and any written acknowledgements of intention.
Note for married couples only: If the home is not in your name, register Matrimonial Home Rights with the Land Registry at the first sign of separation. This blocks a sale or remortgage without notice. (This protection does not exist for unmarried partners.)
For questions or to connect with Olivia, don’t hesitate to reach out using the details below
+44 (0)20 7412 0050 | Olivia.Piercy@hunterslaw.com
This piece is for general information and does not constitute legal advice. If you are affected by these issues, seek confidential advice from a family lawyer experienced in cohabitation, TLATA, and domestic/economic abuse.