No ring, no rights? Not for long, says Ministry of Justice.

On 5 June 2026, the Ministry of Justice published its long-awaited consultation paper, “A Fairer End to Relationships”, proposing sweeping reforms to the law governing financial arrangements when cohabitant relationships end in England and Wales. Part 3 of the consultation addresses a topic of profound significance to anyone advising on wills, trusts and estate planning: the extension of intestacy rights to qualifying cohabitants.

In this article, I consider the proposed changes from a trusts and estates perspective, and set out what cohabitants and their advisers should be thinking about now. My colleague Sophie Richardson has written distinct commentary on parts 1 and 2 of the consultation, which relate to reform of the law on (i) financial remedies on divorce and dissolution, and (ii) separation of cohabitants.

The current position: exclusion of cohabitants

When we talk about the “intestacy rules” in England and Wales, we refer to a specific piece of legislation. That legislation determines how an estate is distributed when a person dies without a valid will.

Under these rules, priority is given to a surviving spouse or civil partner, followed by children and other descendants.

The consultation itself cites a 2019 report which documents that almost half of the population in England and Wales (47%) incorrectly believes that cohabiting for a period creates a “common law marriage” conferring equivalent legal rights to marriage. That’s also a statement I hear a lot from cohabiting clients. It does not reflect reality.

Cohabitants (regardless of how long they have lived with a deceased party, whether they have children with that party, or were financially dependent upon them) have no automatic entitlement to inherit anything at all under the intestacy rules. They also have no right to participate in ‘sorting out’ the deceased’s estate, as the personal representative.

The surviving cohabitant’s only remedy in an intestate estate is to bring a claim for reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (“the 1975 Act”). That process is discretionary, and can prove costly, stressful and uncertain, particularly given it must be pursued at a time of bereavement. Crucially, the standard of provision for a cohabitant is limited to what is required for their “maintenance”, which is markedly lower than the standard applied to a surviving spouse.

What is being proposed?

The Government broadly agrees with the Law Commission’s 2011 recommendation that qualifying cohabitants should inherit under the intestacy rules in the same way as a surviving spouse or civil partner. This would mean that a qualifying cohabitant could receive:

• the personal chattels of the deceased;
• the statutory legacy (currently £322,000); and
• depending on the size of the estate and the existence of children, a share of or even the whole residuary estate.

The cohabitant would also gain equivalent priority in the order of entitlement to administer the deceased’s estate (i.e. to apply for a grant of letters of administration).

Who would qualify?

The consultation proposes a “marriage-equivalence” definition. A qualifying cohabitant would be a person who lived in the same household as the deceased, as if they were the deceased’s spouse or civil partner, for a continuous period immediately before death. Factors such as shared residence, financial arrangements, mutual commitment and public presentation of the relationship would be relevant.

A minimum duration period of cohabitation would apply. The Government has not put a figure on that. However, it refers to the Law Commission’s previous proposals of five years for couples without children, and two years where the couple share a child. Importantly, the reforms would apply only where the deceased died intestate and was not married or in a civil partnership (so with someone else) at the time of death.

Changes to the 1975 Act

The consultation also proposes removing the existing two-year qualifying period for 1975 Act claims (discussed above) where the surviving cohabitant and the deceased had children together. This would allow a cohabitant in a shorter relationship who shares a child with the deceased to seek financial provision from the estate even if they do not meet the minimum duration for automatic intestacy entitlement.

The tension: blended families and competing claims

Perhaps the most significant practical issue arising from these proposals is their impact on blended families. Where a qualifying cohabitant inherits the whole or a substantial part of an estate on intestacy, children from the deceased’s previous relationships may find their inheritance significantly reduced or eliminated entirely.

The consultation acknowledges this tension. It notes that such children would probably retain standing to bring their own claim under the 1975 Act, effectively reversing the current position (where it is the cohabitant who must claim against children who inherit on intestacy).

For families with complex dynamics (second relationships, children from multiple partnerships, step-children) the proposals have the potential to generate significant disputes.

What the reforms do not address

It is important to note what the consultation explicitly does not cover (from a trusts and estates perspective). The proposals relate solely to the intestacy rules and the 1975 Act. Two major matters they do not address are:-

• Inheritance tax: Cohabitants would still not benefit from the IHT spouse exemption, the transferable nil rate bands, in the same way as married couples and civil partners. This remains a significant financial disadvantage, particularly for estates exceeding the nil rate band threshold.
• Pension entitlements: The reforms do not alter the rules governing pension death benefits or survivor benefits for cohabitants.

In other words, even if a cohabitant gains an automatic right to inherit on intestacy, they may face a substantially higher tax burden on that inheritance than a surviving spouse would in identical circumstances.

Timing: when might this become law?

The consultation closes on 14 August 2026. Following that, the Government has stated that responses will “inform the development of legislation” and that any legislation will be introduced “when parliamentary time allows.”

In practice, we should not assume that legislative change is imminent. I would be surprised to see an Act of Parliament before 2030.

That said, the breadth and ambition of the current consultation, coupled with an express manifesto commitment from the Government and the decision to consult on all three areas of reform simultaneously, does suggest a stronger political will than has previously been the case.

What should cohabitants (and their advisers) do now?

Perhaps the most important point is to remind readers of the status quo. The current intestacy rules remain in force, and they continue to leave cohabitants entirely unprotected.

The following steps also constitute a non-exhaustive list and should be considered:

1. Make a will (or review your existing one). This remains the most important thing any cohabiting person can do to protect their partner. Appropriate tax planning can also often be discussed and built in.
2. Consider declarations of trust and property ownership. The will is not the whole picture. Where a couple share a home, the basis of ownership should be considered, and also clearly documented. If you’re both agreed your share of the home should pass to, say, your respective children, have you considered whether the title actually allows that? And is it clear what your ‘share’ consists of? A declaration of trust can set out each partner’s share in the property and avoid costly disputes.
3. Execute cohabitation agreements. Cohabitation agreements can address how finances and property will be dealt with during the relationship and in the event of separation or death. They can complement testamentary planning.
4. Pension nominations and life assurance policies. Ensure that death benefit nominations under pension schemes and life assurance policies are up to date and reflect the cohabitant’s wishes. Settling life assurance policies to trust should always be considered.
5. Understand the tax position. Be mindful of the fact that, even once these changes become law, the inheritance tax position as outlined above will not change. Providing for your cohabitant partner, sadly, will have a tax cost if you estate exceeds a certain threshold. The rate of inheritance tax remains 40% after consideration of any exemptions, reliefs and nil rate band allowances. If you are concerned to mitigate that, you should take advice on options at an early stage.

Concluding thoughts

Many would agree with the government’s status that the current law on intestacy simply doesn’t reflect the reality of modern family life. However, should the proposals become law, the devil will certainly be in the detail when it comes to assessing their true impact. I feel a strong sense, when reviewing the consultation paper, that for cohabitant partners with children, the cost to them of relying on their estates being subject to the intestacy provisions is only to get steeper. The personal stress, cost and inheritance tax with which beneficiaries could be confronted following an intestate death far outstrip the cost of simply undertaking careful will and estate planning now.

So, the practical advice remains easy and unchanged. Make a will, take professional advice on its legal and tax implications, and do not rely on assumptions about what you or your partner may be entitled to on death. If you would like to discuss how these proposals might affect your own estate planning, please do get in touch.