Cohabitation law reform 2026: what's proposed for unmarried couples and what to do now

Status at 1 October 2026: proposals only. The consultation closed on 14 August 2026. GOV.UK says the government is analysing the responses. No outcome has been published, the government hasn’t introduced a Bill and nothing has changed in law. A private member’s Bill, the Cohabitation Rights Bill [HL], had its second reading in the House of Lords on 17 July 2026, but it’s not the government’s Bill. We’ll update this page when that changes.

This guide explains cohabitation law reform 2026 for unmarried couples in England and Wales: what the government has proposed, what it hasn’t, and what you can sensibly do now while you wait.

What is cohabitation law reform 2026, and where has it got to?

On 5 June 2026 the Ministry of Justice published a consultation called “A fairer end to relationships”. It ran until 14 August 2026 and covers England and Wales. It has three parts:

1. Divorce: changing how money is shared when a marriage or civil partnership ends.
2. Cohabitants who separate: a new set of rights for some unmarried couples when they split up.
3. Cohabitants when one dies: new inheritance rights if a partner dies without a will.

This guide covers parts 2 and 3. The government’s reason is the gap between what people believe and what the law does. The consultation says 3.5 million couples live together without marrying or forming a civil partnership, and that almost half of people (47%) in England and Wales believe “common-law marriage” exists. It doesn’t.

The idea isn’t new. The Law Commission recommended a scheme for separating cohabitants in 2007, and inheritance rights for cohabitants in 2011. The government of the time decided in 2011 not to take the 2007 report forward in that Parliament, and said the same about the 2011 cohabitation recommendations in 2013. In 2022 the Women and Equalities Committee called for reform again. The current government promised in its 2024 manifesto to “strengthen the rights and protections available to women in cohabiting couples”. In February 2025 it confirmed it would consult, as the Lord Chancellor’s February 2026 report to Parliament on Law Commission work records.

What happens next. The government has to read the responses and publish its decision. Then a Bill would need to pass through Parliament, and the new law would need a start date. The consultation says only that any legislation “will be introduced when parliamentary time allows”. There’s no timetable, so treat any date you see quoted as a guess.

Who would the new rules cover?

The proposed rules for separating couples would apply automatically, unless you opt out, if you:

• are two adults living together as a couple in an enduring family relationship, so not siblings or flatmates,
• have lived together for at least three years, or live together and have a child, or have a “child of the family” (a child you’ve both treated as yours, but not a foster child placed by a council),
• are both 18 or over, and
• aren’t married to or in a civil partnership with each other, and aren’t too closely related to marry.

To decide whether you count as a couple, a court would look at the whole picture. The consultation asks which factors from the Law Commission’s 2007 report a court should use, such as a shared household, how stable the relationship is, your money arrangements, children, and whether people saw you as a couple.

Three years isn’t a cliff edge either. The consultation says shorter relationships will probably get more limited awards, and the length of the relationship would count when a court decides.

What could a court order if you split up?

This is the part most often misreported. The proposals are not “half of everything after three years”.

The starting point is what each of you legally owns. A court would begin from the position that each person keeps what they legally own. It could move away from that only where needed to meet defined needs. There would be no default 50:50 split, because the “sharing” principle used on divorce wouldn’t apply.

Needs come in two stages:

1. Children first. Any children’s needs would come before the adults’.
2. Each adult’s own needs, so far as resources allow: housing, capital, income and pension needs, with the aim that each person can find suitable housing and meet living costs. A court could use your standard of living together as a benchmark.

“Discretionary needs”, meaning comforts rather than necessities, would be left out. The consultation gives a high-value car, non-essential home improvements and private club memberships as examples. A court could also take into account choices that affected someone’s finances, such as cutting their hours to look after a child.

What a court could order. The same types of order as on divorce, including transferring property, a lump sum and sharing a pension. Maintenance for an adult would be for exceptional cases only, such as serious health issues or disability, and always for a fixed period that couldn’t be extended. A cohabitant could never get more than they would have got on divorce in the same circumstances, and the court would aim for a clean break as soon as is just and reasonable.

There’d be a time limit. You’d have to apply within two years of separating.

Here’s how that compares with today:

Topic	Today	Proposed
Who’s covered	No special status	3 years together, or a child
Starting point	Whose name, what you recorded	What each legally owns
Which court	Civil court, property law	Family court
Pension sharing	Not possible	Possible, to meet needs
Money for an adult	No maintenance	Exceptional, time-limited

Couples who don’t qualify, who miss the time limit or who opt out would still use today’s property law to sort out who owns the home.

Could you opt out, and how?

Yes, under the proposals, if you both agree. The government says opting out gives couples choice, and gives the example of an older couple with children from earlier relationships who already know how they want their own assets passed on.

Because opting out gives up rights, the proposed safeguards are strict. An opt-out agreement would have to:

1. be a valid contract, made without pressure or being misled,
2. be made as a deed, with a statement signed by both of you that you understand it’s an opt-out agreement,
3. come with disclosure of each other’s finances when you make it, and
4. come with independent legal advice for each of you.

You couldn’t waive the disclosure or the advice. Any change to the agreement would need the same steps. And an opt-out couldn’t stop a child maintenance application, or a claim made for a child’s benefit.

How this fits with a couples agreement. A couples agreement (also called a cohabitation agreement or a house buying agreement) records how you share the home, the deposit and the bills. Today, courts can take it into account, especially if it’s fair and you were both open about your money. An opt-out agreement under the proposals would be a different, more formal document. The consultation doesn’t say what would happen to agreements made before any new law starts, so a couples agreement made today shouldn’t be treated as an opt-out.

What would change if one of you dies?

Today, an unmarried partner inherits nothing under the intestacy rules when a partner dies without a will. Their only route is a court claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, which usually needs two years living together as a couple immediately before the death.

The proposals would change three things:

• Inheriting without a will. A “qualifying cohabitant” would inherit in the same way as a spouse or civil partner, both in how much and in their place in the order. This would apply only if the partner who died wasn’t still married to or in a civil partnership with someone else.
• Dealing with the estate. A qualifying cohabitant would have the same priority as a spouse to apply to deal with the estate.
• Couples with a child. The two-year rule for a court claim would be removed where the surviving partner is the other parent of the deceased’s child.

The minimum length isn’t decided. The Law Commission’s 2011 report suggested five years living together, or two years if you had a child together who was living with you. The government asked whether five years is still right for couples without children, and whether two years is right for couples with a child.

These proposals don’t cover Inheritance Tax or pensions, which belong to other government departments.

What do the proposals not do?

It helps to be clear about the limits:

• They don’t create common-law marriage. Living together still wouldn’t give you a married couple’s rights. The framework is deliberately narrower than divorce.
• They don’t split things 50:50. The starting point is what each of you owns.
• They don’t change anything yet. Today’s rules apply until a new law starts.
• They don’t cover Scotland or Northern Ireland. Scotland already has its own cohabitation rules.
• They don’t say how existing couples would be treated when a new law starts. Any decision on that would come with the final law.
• They don’t cover Inheritance Tax or pensions. Those sit with other government departments.
• They’re not final. The three-year period, the two-year time limit and the inheritance rules were all put out for views and could change.

How would this work with real numbers?

Alex and Jordan aren’t married and have no children. Four years ago they bought a £300,000 home in both names. Alex put in a £40,000 deposit and Jordan £10,000, with a £250,000 joint mortgage. Now the home is worth £330,000 with £230,000 of the mortgage left, so there’s £100,000 of equity.

They’ve lived together for four years, so they’d be over the proposed three-year line. Here’s where they’d start if they split up, today and under the proposals:

Alex and Jordan's £100,000 today and under the proposals

What they did	Today	Under the proposals
Joint names, nothing recorded	£50,000 each	From what each owns, then needs
Deposits back first, recorded	£65,000 and £35,000	From £65,000 and £35,000, then needs
Opted out properly	Not possible yet	£65,000 and £35,000

Today. With nothing recorded, the starting point for a home in joint names is equal shares, even though Alex paid more. If they recorded “deposits back first”, each gets their deposit back (£40,000 and £10,000), then the £50,000 left is split equally: £65,000 for Alex and £35,000 for Jordan.

Under the proposals. A court would start from what each of them legally owns. The proposals don’t say how “what each owns” would be worked out. If recorded shares count, as they do under today’s property law, that’s £65,000 and £35,000. The court could move away from it only if one of them needed more to meet defined needs, such as somewhere to live, and it couldn’t do better for them than a divorce would. The proposals don’t say how a court would work out “what each owns” for a home in joint names with nothing recorded, so we haven’t put numbers on that row. The bottom row assumes they recorded the same split and made an opt-out agreement with every proposed safeguard. The consultation says couples who opt out would still use today’s property law, so their recorded shares would apply. Illustration only: this ignores selling costs, tax and who paid the mortgage. Try your own numbers in the deposit split calculator.

If Alex died without a will. Say they own as tenants in common. Today, Alex’s £65,000 share goes to Alex’s relatives, not Jordan, though Jordan could ask a court for provision because they lived together for more than two years. Under the proposals, Jordan would inherit as a spouse would only if four years meets the minimum period, which isn’t set yet. At the Law Commission’s suggested five years, Jordan wouldn’t qualify. A will from each of them settles it either way.

The fair version for both of them is the highlighted row: shares recorded when they buy, plus wills. It works under today’s rules and gives any future court a clear starting point.

What should you do now?

1. Don’t wait for the law. Today’s rules apply, and there’s no date for change. If you’re buying, decide now how you’ll share the home.
2. Talk it through together. Agree the deposit, the mortgage, the bills, and what happens if you split. The free 10-minute conversation takes you through it side by side, and your answers stay on your device.
3. Record your shares when you buy. Tell your conveyancer whether you’ll be joint tenants or tenants in common, and in what shares. Our guide to what a couples agreement covers explains what to write down.
4. Write it down. A couples agreement records what you’ve both agreed. Courts can take it into account, especially if it’s fair and you were both open about your money. See how your agreement counts and how much weight a couples agreement carries.
5. Make wills, and fill in each pension scheme’s nomination form. A will works today and under any new inheritance rules.
6. Get legal advice if one of you owns the home alone, family money is involved, either of you has children from an earlier relationship, or you’re separating now. A solicitor can tell you where you stand today.
7. Check back. We’ll update this page when the government publishes its response. For where you stand now, read unmarried couples’ rights in the UK.