Church leaders are discussing ending the discrimination that exists between the rights of married and unmarried couples. JO HAYWOOD examines whether living together is for better or for worse.

INCREASING numbers of people are choosing to live together without the legal trappings of a marriage certificate. But is this decision seriously damaging their wealth?

For about one in six couples, a marriage certificate is "just a piece of paper". Unfortunately for them, however, this supposedly meaningless piece of paper can have dire consequences in terms of their property and financial rights.

In fact, the disadvantages are so significant that the Church of England is currently debating its stance on cohabitation, prompted by a motion presented to the General Synod by the York Diocesan Synod calling for couples who live together to be awarded the same legal rights as married couples.

The motion, presented by the Reverend Simon Stanley, priest-in-charge of St Chad's and All Saints', in York, says a legal contract between cohabitees is socially desirable as a guard against potential injustice and misery.

The legal profession has similar concerns and is also pressing for a change in the law.

This comes after a study carried out by Oxford University researchers revealed that the cohabitation figures are likely to continue rising, with one in three couples remaining unmarried by 2021.

The study also showed that lack of rights played little or no part in a couple's decision to marry. But this could have more to do with widespread ignorance about just how unprotected they are if they split up, and less to do with widespread romance.

A recent survey of social attitudes found that 56 per cent of people questioned - rising to 59 per cent for cohabitees - thought common-law marriage conferred the same rights as a marriage ceremony. In reality, there has been no such thing as common-law marriage in England since 1753, and legal protection for cohabitees is minimal.

John Reynard, a specialist in family law with York solicitors Harrowell Shaftoe, said the anomaly was creating distress for thousands of people every year.

"It is a sad fact that a substantial number of unmarried people are left in dire financial circumstances because they did not realise their rights to property, assets and pensions was very limited," he said.

"Living together for a long period of time doesn't necessarily mean that a partner would be entitled to a share in the family home, and court proceedings may be necessary to secure a financial solution."

A so-called "common-law wife" has no automatic entitlement to a share of her partner's income or investments, and she has no claim against her partner's pension, unlike her married counterpart.

If the family home is in her partner's name she could also face a complex legal battle to establish a claim over the property.

In extreme cases she might find herself homeless and penniless.

It could be some time before the law is changed to end the discrimination against unmarried couples, but there are actions that couples can take now to protect their rights.

"While the law remains as it is, couples who plan to cohabit should each take legal advice and consider drawing up a Cohabitation Agreement which would clearly define each party's rights and entitlements," said Mr Reynard.

"It may not seem a romantic act at the beginning of a relationship which is full of hope for the future, but if things do not go according to plan it can save a tremendous amount of pain and trauma."

Updated: 09:09 Thursday, February 19, 2004