Closest thing to "civil partnership" for couple who are not same-sex.

mumps

HanSpan wrote: »

I still haven't managed to work out how the pension rights are different. I think it must depend on factors that don't apply to me so I am not really understanding them.

The things I do know are different, at least in England

Marriage you have to say some particular words (there's a variety of exact wordings but basically the "I know of no legal reason we can't" bit and the "I take whatsisname to be my husband/wife" bit).
CP you don't have to say any words - just sign the register.

Marriages the names of only the fathers of the two people are included on the paper register. CPs both parents are included, and the register is electronic.

There's different rules for reasons for annulment. A marriage can be annulled if its not consumated, or if one party was suffereing from VD at the time of marriage! Neither of these are grounds for annulment of a CP.

Ending a marriage is called divorce, ending a CP similarly is called a dissolution order. Again the rules for what grounds can be used are different. Adultery (which is defined as sexual intercourse with someone of the opposite sex outside the marriage) can be grounds for divorce but not for dissolution of a CP.

Oh & if you are married you can't call yourselves Civil Partners for legal reasons and visa versa.

HTH

edited to add the link to the govt table which I think I've covered above - this is where you can find it.
The vast majority or rows of information appear to be identical, other than those I've listed above.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/comparison-of-civil-partnership-and-marriage-for-same-sex-couples

,
That is interesting, I thought people could write their own vows now and from what other people have said you can leave the fathers name off.

Re the pension, I think it might affect you more than you realise. From what I can see, sorry I lost the link, your OHs contributions would go back to when he started paying them when they calculate a widow's pension if you are married, if it is a CP they would only go back to when CPs came into effect so I think that was 2004. I think you said you were in your 50s,apologies if I got that wrong but it could mean any pension is only based on 11 years contributions rather than 30 or so years. Obviously you would know if this is an issue, he might have only joined a pension scheme in later years so no problem but you could be losing two thirds of any pension, and vice versa of course.

Of course they could change those rules or they could make the situation worse for you and say if CP is made legal for mixed sexed couples the pension clock starts now.

missbiggles1

duchy wrote: »

I thought this post was interesting. It does illustrate how some cohabitating couples assume things and get an abrupt shock at the most difficult of times (On the benefits and funerals thread)

I'm 35 with a 13 year old and a 15 year old, my partner of 17 years passed away unexpectedly on Sept 2015. I was his carer for many years as he suffered with epilepsy, depression & anxiety!...when he passed I didn't have 2 mins to myself to think, I got letters from social, housing, council tax everything straight away everything stopped (which was right coz it was in both our names) but they didn't give me a day to get my head round things which is so wrong as I had a funeral to prepare and 2 heartbroken children to look after. Also as we have been together since I was 18 years old and have had 2 children I didn't qualify for bereavement allowance or anything which is so wrong as we have been together longer than most marriages. I didnt even qualify as his next of kin because we werent down as legally married so my 15 year old daughter had to go down so it made me feel like all them years together meant nothing. I think that if you have been together for more than 10 years then you should be eligible for bereavement allowance (as i thought you are practically classed as married anyways). Apart from a funeral grant i didnt get any help with anything, which didn't even cover the cost of the funeral director fees so Im still paying that off for the next year or two. It's just so wrong....

The (outdated) usage of the terms "common law husband/wife" has a lot to answer for.

mumps

missbiggles1 wrote: »

The (outdated) usage of the terms "common law husband/wife" has a lot to answer for.

I think it was probably thought diplomatic at one time when it wasn't the done thing to be living with someone without being married, a bit like saying, "She isn't a real tart, she has been living with him for years not like Flossie over the road who has lived with half a dozen none of them lasting more than a few months."

Reminds me of a well meaning student who was doing some research into prostitution, she had permission to come and spend some time with the vice squad. She was lecturing us about how it was rude to use the term Known Common Prostitute and that we should treat all the women the same, first offence or 1000th. We had to explain to her that the prostitues really wouldn't appreciate her interference as the first couple of times they were picked up they didn't get charged just cautioned and after a time, a year if I remember correctly the slate was wiped clean and they got two more cautions. Of course if they were clever, in those days of things being done on index cards rather than computers, they could go to a different area and get two more free cautions. Not sure what the legislation is now, I haven't kept up.

Sometimes trying to be nice can have some unfortunate consequences.

Mojisola

mumps wrote: »

I think it was probably thought diplomatic at one time when it wasn't the done thing to be living with someone without being married, a bit like saying, "She isn't a real tart, she has been living with him for years not like Flossie over the road who has lived with half a dozen none of them lasting more than a few months."

Prior to 1753, 'common law' spouses were recognised. The phrase might have been used since as a polite way for referring to an unmarried couple but it's extraordinary how, despite so many years having past, people still believe that living together for some years gives them the same rights as couples who get married.

HanSpan

mumps wrote: »

,
That is interesting, I thought people could write their own vows now and from what other people have said you can leave the fathers name off.

Re the pension, I think it might affect you more than you realise. From what I can see, sorry I lost the link, your OHs contributions would go back to when he started paying them when they calculate a widow's pension if you are married, if it is a CP they would only go back to when CPs came into effect so I think that was 2004. I think you said you were in your 50s,apologies if I got that wrong but it could mean any pension is only based on 11 years contributions rather than 30 or so years. Obviously you would know if this is an issue, he might have only joined a pension scheme in later years so no problem but you could be losing two thirds of any pension, and vice versa of course.

Of course they could change those rules or they could make the situation worse for you and say if CP is made legal for mixed sexed couples the pension clock starts now.

Yes it seems you can leave off your father's name if you choose, but I do personally prefer the CP rules where you can put both parents.
As an aside the govt vowed to change this in 2014 but still haven't pulled their fingers out!

In terms of pensions I genuinely don't think it will have any effect on us personally. I could be wrong but I really can't find any difference between CPs and marriage.
My SOs pension allows you to just name someone and they get whatever the scheme allows - married or not so I get it whether we marry, become CPs or do nothing.
Mine gives absolutely nothing unless you are CPs or married, and if you are either its the same. So if we get married or become CPs he will get half, if we do neither he will get nothing. However if we do nothing, once I turn 60 I can claim back most of the 1.5% I paid towards a theoretical widows/widowers pension throughout my career (and I get that whichever of us dies first and however long the other lives)

HanSpan

duchy wrote: »

I thought this post was interesting. It does illustrate how some cohabitating couples assume things and get an abrupt shock at the most difficult of times (On the benefits and funerals thread)

I'm 35 with a 13 year old and a 15 year old, my partner of 17 years passed away unexpectedly on Sept 2015. I was his carer for many years as he suffered with epilepsy, depression & anxiety!...when he passed I didn't have 2 mins to myself to think, I got letters from social, housing, council tax everything straight away everything stopped (which was right coz it was in both our names) but they didn't give me a day to get my head round things which is so wrong as I had a funeral to prepare and 2 heartbroken children to look after. Also as we have been together since I was 18 years old and have had 2 children I didn't qualify for bereavement allowance or anything which is so wrong as we have been together longer than most marriages. I didnt even qualify as his next of kin because we werent down as legally married so my 15 year old daughter had to go down so it made me feel like all them years together meant nothing. I think that if you have been together for more than 10 years then you should be eligible for bereavement allowance (as i thought you are practically classed as married anyways). Apart from a funeral grant i didnt get any help with anything, which didn't even cover the cost of the funeral director fees so Im still paying that off for the next year or two. It's just so wrong....

Having gone to look at bereavement allowance its another of those where the govt do one thing if you are living "as though you are married" before a death (they won't pay the survivor bereavement allowance) but the other way if you live with someone "as thought you are married" after. They pick how to consider living together depending on what costs them less it seems

If A&B were living together "as though they were married" but not actually married or in a CP and A dies, then B does not get bereavement allowance at all.

If A&B were married or in a CP and A dies, then B does get bereavement allowance (if and how much depends on various factors).
Unless A&B were married or in a CP and A dies but then B moves in with C and lives "as thought they were married" - then B doesn't get bereavement allowance at all.

As to what counts as "as if they are married" the bits I read didn't explain that. Is it just sharing pots and pans and finance or its it if you're having sex or not I wonder?

duchy

HanSpan wrote: »

As to what counts as "as if they are married" the bits I read didn't explain that. Is it just sharing pots and pans and finance or its it if you're having sex or not I wonder?

I think it's a combination of things ......sharing a bed doesn't seem to count but buying food together for joint meals does for example- which has a weird kind of logic I guess.

mumps

HanSpan wrote: »

Yes it seems you can leave off your father's name if you choose, but I do personally prefer the CP rules where you can put both parents.
As an aside the govt vowed to change this in 2014 but still haven't pulled their fingers out!

In terms of pensions I genuinely don't think it will have any effect on us personally. I could be wrong but I really can't find any difference between CPs and marriage.
My SOs pension allows you to just name someone and they get whatever the scheme allows - married or not so I get it whether we marry, become CPs or do nothing.
Mine gives absolutely nothing unless you are CPs or married, and if you are either its the same. So if we get married or become CPs he will get half, if we do neither he will get nothing. However if we do nothing, once I turn 60 I can claim back most of the 1.5% I paid towards a theoretical widows/widowers pension throughout my career (and I get that whichever of us dies first and however long the other lives)

Of course individual schemes can have their own rules, what I was referring to was the legislation for what they have to offer and it does seem that some people would lose out on that basis. I would make sure if it was me, I think I would write to the scheme and get it in writing that just counting contributions since the law changed wouldn't apply. I guess I am not the trusting type.

HanSpan

duchy wrote: »

I think it's a combination of things ......sharing a bed doesn't seem to count but buying food together for joint meals does for example- which has a weird kind of logic I guess.

And yet I shared food buying with several individuals and groups I lived with over the years and would never have counted then as living with me "as if we were married.

And sharing a bed proves little - we don't! Its actually one of the things I think has guaranteed the longevity of our relationship - lack of sleep makes me a VERY grumpy girl and he flings his arms around like a helicopter!

HanSpan

mumps wrote: »

Of course individual schemes can have their own rules, what I was referring to was the legislation for what they have to offer and it does seem that some people would lose out on that basis. I would make sure if it was me, I think I would write to the scheme and get it in writing that just counting contributions since the law changed wouldn't apply. I guess I am not the trusting type.

I'm not saying there aren't any differences, just that I can't work out exactly what they might be. I think that table may have confused me even more as it is about single sex couples and the differences between marriage and CPs - I wonder if there are still differences between married couples of the same or differing sex.
The thing is that, for us personally, it doesn't matter all that much, as we both have our own and would be OK without any extra from the other whichever of us goes first.
I'd not get married, or enter a CP, just to get better pension rights. Well maybe I would if it were millions