Long one RE marriage/one partners debt.

Malthusian

Doodles said:

I didn't think prenups were legal in this country, but perhaps I'm wrong. 

You can't use a prenup to get a spouse to waive their right to a fair share of the marriage assets for nothing. Which makes them pointless for most of the people who think they want one.

The OP does not need a prenup as what they want to achieve with one - a guarantee that they won't be affected if their spouse declares bankruptcy - is already the case by default. (Assuming of course that they do not put the house in their partner's name or act as guarantor or otherwise intertwine their finances.)

Apart from dealing with the partner's debt, the OP should also make sure they have Wills and Powers of Attorney sorted out and check whether being unmarried has any implications for their pensions.

TBagpuss

Doodles said:

Personally I am all for simplicity in life, so I would suggest marriage isn't on the cards until the debt is paid off and you are both are on an equal footing financially speaking.

Their take home salary is fairly low so could they look at a 2nd job, or upskilling to increase their future earning opportunities.  At the very least there has to be work from their end to address the issue. 

I didn't think prenups were legal in this country, but perhaps I'm wrong. 

they are legal, they are not enforceable. How it works is that if a couple divorce, the court has to make a financial or which is fair to them both, taking ito account all relevant factors. There is a list of factors which are or may be likely to be relevant, one of which is any prior agreement.

The approach which the courts have taken is that if there is a Pre-Nup or a separation Agreement, they will use that as a starting point (assuming that certain conditions are met, such as both parties having had legal advice and fincial disclosure before signing, and it not having been signed too close to the wedding(which creates a concern that one person was coerced into signing it )

Effectively it creates a situation where the person looking for a different settlement has to convince the court that it is fair to let them renege on their original agreement. 

The court can make an order in different terms, but they will need to be convinced that it is fair to do so.

Normally, the longer ago the agreement was signed, and the more that has changed since, (e.g. children being born/adopted, a parties health deteriorating, big changes in the parties respective earning capacities etc) the more likely a court is to change or disregard the agreement, which is why ideally you review and update them every few years. 

CottonTail

I think you need to confront the elephant in the room here that love cannot solve everything.
You clearly have very different opinions when it comes to money and you have to ask yourself can I really trust/rely on this person for the rest of my life to be financially compatible? When he's doing very little to bother to change his situation except get into more debt,  i think you know the answer......
I would consider marriage very long and hard unless hes willing to change his ways....
Im sorry to be brutal but he sounds like a waster...

london21

It’s slightly annoying when 2 parties are very different when it comes to finance.

might be better for your partner to prioritise clearing their debt first.

if you buy the property and your partner also living there, they will also have rights to make claims on the property.