Lawyers see 'explosion' in cohabitation cases
The recession has caused an ‘explosion’ in the number of cohabiting couples seeking advice on relationship breakdown, according to family lawyers who have called for the ‘complex’ laws applied to them to be updated.
Vanessa Lloyd Platt, founder of London firm Lloyd Platt & Co, said: ‘We have seen an explosion in the number of cohabitees coming to us to deal with the breakdown of their relationships, with cases up 15% over the last three months.’
She said part of the rise is because fewer people are marrying, but she attributed the recent surge to the impact of the recession.
‘Struggling relationships are ending sooner than they otherwise might, due to the economic climate, particularly where one partner owns the home in which they live,’ said Lloyd Platt.
She said: ‘People need to release the capital from their homes in order to live, especially if they have been made redundant or face the prospect of losing their job.’
Lloyd Platt said the law in relation to cohabitees is ‘complex’ and disadvantages women who may have given up a career to take care of children, and should be brought in line with the law applied to married people and same sex couples in civil partnerships.
Gianna Lisiecki, acting head of the family team at Manchester firm JMW, said she had seen a definite increase in the number of cohabitation disputes in recent months. ‘People are under financial strain, which can place pressure on their relationship and as a consequence causes some relationships to breakdown,’ said Lisiecki.
But Caroline Falkus, partner and collaborative lawyer at north London firm Bross Bennett, said the effect of the recession will not be felt by most couples until next year when the public sector spending cuts start to bite.
She said cohabiting clients are suffering because of the outdated law that is applied to them. ‘Relying on ancient trust law to unpick the threads of a loving relationship over many years is clearly ridiculous,’ she said, and called for civil partnerships to be extended to heterosexual couples.
Comments
There is already a
There is already a heterosexual version of civil partnerships. It is called marriage, in case Ms Falkus had forgotten. If heterosexual cohabitees cannot be bothered to get married, or choose to stay in a relationship where the other party (presumably the one with greater assets in the scenario implicitly posited) is unwilling to marry, that is their own tough luck.
Does the Law Serve the People?
Whilst I agree marriage exists, in this area the law is not meeting the needs of people as they live their lives.
This is a serious issue as the more laws there are, the more we feel we are bend to its needs instead of the other way round.
There is so much law I doubt any of us get through a week without innocently breaking some law.
Can we have less laws but better ones? Can we have a declutter? No new law unless an old one is disposed of?
Yes please, far less laws-time for a major clear out
There is far too many laws, in a similar manner to there being far too much on the statute with regard to taxation and the like. Everything is 'way' too complicated, far more complex than it needs to be. A very large dose of repeal and simplification across all areas of the statute is needed. Make it all simpler, it will all work out cheaper (for everyone) and be a lot fairer all round.
Cohabitation
Anonymous, clearly you are not cohabiting with a partner but for those of us who are and simply cannot afford to marry, shouldn't we be provided with better protection than is currently available?? I would love to marry my partner but it was a choice between paying for a wedding or my LPC fees....
Cohabitation
Dear Louise
I had understood that the fees for the LPC were several thousand pounds. Judging by what it says on my local council website (Lewisham), you can get married for a grand total of little more than £100, a sum which which I am sure you and your partner would have been/will be able to afford, notwithstanding your LPC fees, if you are so keen on wedding each other.
Oh, sorry - silly me! I failed to realise that implicit in your comparison between a wedding and the LPC is the (thoroughly fatuous) assumption that getting married necessrily involves wasting money on a dress you will never wear again and feeding and watering over 100 people (a goodly proportion of whom are obligatory invitees). It does not, of course.
The long and the short of this issue is this: if a couple (irrespective of sexuality, now that gays and lesbians may go the civil partnership route) cannot be bothered to take steps to organise their lives. they should quit complaining, grow up and start taking some responsibility for their own actions. They will have brought their problems up on themselves. There is no need to change the law.
Here, here - stop moaning and get wed if that is what you want !
.
Consider a Mastercard!
Commendable advice... I took a loan and did the LPC, then got married (cost a few bob but well under £1k).
LPC cost in excess of £6k, to get wed 'price-LESS'.
civil partnerships
Could Caroline Falkus please explain the difference between marriage and a Heterosexual Civil Partnership? What different effects would either have in the case of the children of each of such a couple from previous marriages?
Why bother getting married
Just find a woman you hate and buy her a house