My former partner and I were never married, but we purchased a property in his name only in August 2018.
We were together for 25 years and have three children together.
The house cost £100,000. We got it cheap as it was a doer-upper, previously on the market for £125,000.
I paid half the total purchase cost via a bank transfer to the solicitor. I also paid half of all the monthly outgoings, including energy bills, via a standing order.
Over the years, I paid the majority of the house renovation costs, including for the kitchen, bathroom, heating, flooring and plastering. All the furniture and appliances were mine.
A This is Money reader wants to know if she can be deemed to have a stake in a property she shared with a former partner
I got receipts for everything and can prove what I paid for.
My ex-partner was terrible with money and has an alcohol problem. We separated in October 2022. I moved out with a single mattress, which is what I was told was all I was allowed to take.
In January 2025, my former partner informed me that he was more than three months in arrears with the mortgage and asked me to pay the debt. I refused, as I had done it with his previous property and he’d never repaid me.
In February 2025 I got a desktop valuation done on the house and discovered it was worth around £170,000.
I wrote a letter to my former partner in February 2025 telling him I wanted my investment returned. The total would be £56,000, including equity on the property, plus the furniture and renovation costs. In March 2025, I sent him a final letter before action.
In April 2025 I changed my mind and decided not to pursue the matter.
But in May 2025, word got back to me that my former partner was selling the house. Everyone was told not to tell me to ensure I wouldn’t find out.
In September 2025, the house was sold off market and under market value to my ex partner’s nephew for £135,000. My ex cannot afford to take a £35,000 loss and I’m suspicious he has had a backhander off the family.
In November 2025 I wrote to my former partner stating my intention to start court proceedings against him. The following month I wrote a final letter before action again.
Before I go ahead with a court claim, do you think I have a strong case? I don’t want to pay the court fee unless I think I have a reasonable chance of succeeding.
Jane Denton, of This is Money, replies: You have told me the reason your name was not added to the property’s title deeds was that you did not want to be so closely linked to your then-partner financially. You told me that you think he is terrible with money.
Another reason you did not get your name added to the deeds was because you thought it was not necessary as you could see yourselves being together as a couple into old age.
You could be deemed to have a stake in the house, even though your name was not on the title deeds.
The strength of your claim will centre on evidence showing your contributions to, for example, the purchase price, ongoing mortgage repayments and renovations you paid for.
The level of your financial ties to the property could be evidenced by, taking a few examples, documents, emails and text messages, or event a shared agreement written up detailing how the property would be shared.
I asked two solicitors for their thoughts on the strength of your potential claim.
Emma Roberts, a partner in the family law team at Stephensons, says: When couples live together without marrying, the law gives fewer automatic rights.
Even so, a non‑owner of a property can still have a financial interest if there was an agreement to share it or if they made certain types of contributions.
From what you have explained, you contributed to the initial purchase, the renovation work and the mortgage and utility payments while you lived there. These are exactly the kinds of contributions that a court would look at carefully.
Emma Roberts is a partner in the family law team at Stephensons
If you decide to take this forward, any application will need to be made under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act, commonly known as TOLATA.
These claims do not go through the small claims court because they are not ordinary money disputes.
TOLATA claims involve the court deciding who has an interest in a property and in what share.
The court will look closely at what you and your former partner agreed at the time and at how each of you behaved in relation to the property during the relationship.
Where a non‑owner has contributed to the purchase price or to significant renovation work, the court may find that a resulting trust has been created.
In practical terms this means the law may recognise that you have a share in the property, which can translate into a share of the sale proceeds.
Another possibility is a constructive trust. This can arise where there was an understanding between you that you would benefit from the property, and you relied on that understanding to your detriment.
Your financial contributions and any decisions you made because of that understanding can help demonstrate that such a trust existed.
Every case turns on its own facts, so having strong evidence is essential. Before starting any legal action, you should gather as much relevant information as you can.
This includes messages, emails and any communication showing what was discussed about the property, as well as bank statements, receipts and any records of the payments and contributions you made.
If you believe the property was sold for less than it was worth, it will also help to collect evidence that supports this, such as online valuation estimates.
TOLATA cases can be complex and may take time to resolve, which is why it is usually worth attempting to reach an agreement without going straight to court.
Mediation or similar approaches can sometimes help both sides reach a resolution more quickly and with less stress.
Whether you reach an agreement informally or decide to pursue a claim, it is important that you understand your legal position fully before making any decisions.
Your prospects will depend on what discussions took place between you and your former partner and the strength of the evidence showing your contributions and intentions at the time.
Because the property has already been sold, part of the process will involve tracing what happened to the sale proceeds.
If your ex‑partner has already spent the money, the court may still make an order in your favour. However, there is always a risk that he may not have the funds available to pay what is ordered.
James Naylor, a partner at Naylor Solicitors, says: The fact your ex’s name was the only one on the deeds does not automatically mean you walk away with nothing.
The Land Registry title shows who legally owns a home, but the court can still find that another person had a stake in it.
If the property has already been sold, that does not necessarily shut the door; it usually shifts the argument from the property to the sale proceeds, where they went and what should happen.
A central question is what was agreed or understood about ownership.
That agreement does not have to be a formal written contract, but it helps if there is something to point to, such as texts, emails, messages, or consistent statements to other people.
If there was no clear agreement, the court can still decide what the parties intended by looking at conduct, namely how finances were arranged, whether the property was treated as a joint project, and what each person contributed.
James Naylor is a partner at Naylor Solicitors
Direct contributions to the deposit or purchase price can be crucial. Paying for renovations may count too, such as a new kitchen or bathroom, or repairs.
By contrast, paying ordinary household bills is often equivocal on its own and usually needs to be linked to a broader pattern showing a shared understanding about ownership.
This is also why a dispute of this kind may not belong on the small claims track.
The issues can involve complex property rights, and the value may exceed the small claims limit, which is generally £10,000; even where lower, it may be unsuitable for reasons of complexity or remedy.
Also, outside small claims, litigation will be more expensive, and the losing party can be ordered to pay the other side’s legal costs.
If something appears murkier, an undervalue transfer or a ‘sweetheart’ deal to a relative, the claim may not depend solely on your ex’s stated price, and the dispute may turn to the true value disposed of, the circumstances of the transaction, and what became of the proceeds.
If your ex still has the sale proceeds, or any ‘backhander’ cash, and there is evidence of a real risk it will be moved or spent, it may be possible to freeze the money, although this is a high-threshold, evidence-heavy, and potentially costly action.
Overall, your facts point to a worthwhile claim. Even with one name on the deeds, the court can still find you had a share and can decide what should happen to the sale money and any part of the value that was deliberately put beyond your reach.
Property problem big or small? Get in touch: editor@thisismoney.co.uk
