The government's recent consultation, "A Fairer End to Relationships", has sparked significant discussion about the future of homeownership for unmarried couples.
While much of the attention has focused on the prospect of strengthened rights for cohabiting couples, the wider implications for property ownership and disputes could be just as significant.
The consultation proposes introducing a new legal framework for qualifying unmarried couples when relationships come to an end, reflecting the reality that over 3.5 million couples in England and Wales now live together without marrying or entering into a civil partnership.
In this article, we explore Labour’s proposals and in particular, the legal rights and claims that could arise with regards to property ownership.
For those homeowners the proposals raise an important question: could long-term cohabitation begin to create rights and claims that currently do not exist?
Despite the common misconception, there is no such thing as a "common law marriage" in England and Wales. Living together for many years, sharing household expenses or even raising children together does not automatically give an unmarried partner the same legal rights as those who are married or in a civil partnership.
At present, when an unmarried couple separates, disputes concerning property are generally determined by trust and property law. A partner whose name is not on the legal title must usually establish a beneficial interest in the property, often by proving:
direct financial contributions towards the purchase price or mortgage,
significant contributions to renovations or improvements,
a common intention that ownership would be shared, or
conduct demonstrating an agreement regarding ownership.
These claims are often pursued under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 ("TOLATA"). The court's primary concern is ownership rather than fairness. If a party cannot establish a legal or beneficial interest, they may leave the relationship with no entitlement to the property, regardless of the length of the relationship or contributions made.
The consultation explores the introduction of a statutory framework for qualifying cohabiting couples when they separate. Importantly, the consultation states that the proposed scheme would be narrower than the financial remedies available on divorce, but it would provide greater protection than those that exist currently.
Rather than focusing exclusively on legal ownership and trust law principles, the proposed system would allow courts to consider the parties' financial needs, including housing, income and capital requirements, when determining whether financial provision should be made for a partner.
Although the detail remains subject to consultation and further development, the proposals represent a significant shift away from the strict ownership approach that currently applies to unmarried separating couples.
The consultation proposes that the framework would apply to couples who:
have lived together for at least three years, or
live together and have a child together, regardless of the length of their relationship, and
are in a committed romantic relationship, not including friendships, family arrangements or shared accommodation arrangements.
Crucially, the proposed scheme would apply automatically to qualifying couples. There would be no requirement to actively opt into the regime, however, couples can opt out provided that both parties provide written agreement to opt out. This aspect of the proposals is likely to attract considerable debate.
One of the most controversial aspects of the consultation is the suggestion that qualifying couples would automatically become subject to the new framework.
Many people make a conscious decision not to marry because they wish to retain financial independence or keep assets separate. Historically, remaining unmarried has often been viewed as a way to avoid the legal consequences associated with marriage and divorce.
Under the proposed reforms, however, a couple could potentially become subject to a statutory financial regime simply by living together for the qualifying period. A homeowner who invites a partner to move into a property they already own may assume that sole legal ownership provides complete protection. If the reforms are introduced, that assumption may no longer be safe.
Critics argue that the proposals risk imposing obligations on individuals who consciously choose not to marry. Supporters, on the other hand, contend that long-term cohabiting relationships often involve shared lives, financial interdependence and sacrifices that deserve greater protection when relationships break down. This is particularly relevant where a partner may have made salary and income sacrifices to care for children and the home.
Many current TOLATA disputes arise because one party seeks to establish a beneficial interest in a property they do not legally own. Cases often focus heavily on historic financial contributions, discussions about ownership and evidence of common intention.
If qualifying cohabitees gain access to a separate statutory remedy based upon financial need, the focus of disputes could change significantly.
Questions that may arise include:
Will fewer people need to pursue traditional beneficial interest claims?
Will claims under a new cohabitation regime run alongside TOLATA proceedings?
Will disputes become less focused on ownership and more focused on financial need?
Will outcomes become less predictable than under established trust law principles?
Until the government decides whether to enact the proposals, and the detail of any legislation becomes known, these questions remain unanswered. However, there is little doubt that the proposals have the potential to reshape the landscape of property disputes involving cohabiting couples.
Perhaps the most important practical point for homeowners is that the consultation proposes allowing couples to opt out of the new framework. To do so, the parties would be required to enter into a written agreement supported by independent legal advice. In effect, this would create the cohabitation equivalent of a pre-nuptial agreement.
If the proposals proceed, documents such as cohabitation agreements, Declarations of Trust and written ownership agreements, are likely to become increasingly important.
For couples with different levels of wealth, family contributions, inherited assets or pre-owned property, documenting intentions clearly at the outset may become essential. Those who wish to preserve separate financial arrangements may need to take proactive legal advice rather than relying solely on the fact that they are not married.
If this is enacted it could have the unintended consequence of dissuading unmarried couples from living together and put further pressure on housing availability, with more unmarried couples living separately.
At present, nothing has changed. The consultation closed on 14 August 2026 and the government will now consider responses before deciding whether to introduce legislation. Property disputes involving unmarried couples continue to be governed by existing trust and property law principles.
However, the direction of travel is clear. The government has shown willingness to provide greater protections for qualifying cohabitees and to move away from a system that many regard as outdated and not representative of modern society.
Whether these proposals ultimately become law remains to be seen. What is clear is that they have reignited an important debate about property ownership, financial fairness and personal choice.
For some, the reforms represent a long-overdue recognition of the realities of modern relationships and the financial vulnerability that can arise when long-term cohabiting relationships end. For others, they raise concerns that individuals may find themselves subject to legal obligations they never intended to assume simply by living with a partner for several years.
Whatever the outcome of the consultation, homeowners and cohabiting couples should not assume that their current arrangements provide adequate protection. Understanding how a property is owned, documenting intentions clearly and seeking advice at an early stage remain the best ways to minimise uncertainty and avoid disputes.
If you are buying a property with a partner, living in a property owned by your partner, unsure where you currently stand as a cohabitee, joint property owner, or you are already involved in a dispute over property ownership, Ashfords can provide advice tailored to your circumstances. Taking advice now may help protect your position, whatever shape future reforms may take.
For any support or further information, please contact our property disputes team.
Renters’ Rights Act roundtables: practical updates and sector insights : Renters’ Rights Act roundtable, Exeter
Renters’ Rights Act roundtables: practical updates and sector insights : Renters’ Rights Act roundtable, Plymouth
We produce a range of insights and publications to help keep our clients up-to-date with legal and sector developments.
Sign up
