Our report, ‘Locked into a mortgage, locked out of my home’, reveals that the lives of around 750,000 UK women are being devastated by their current or ex-partner weaponising a joint mortgage against them.
While banks can do more to support survivors under existing guidelines, we need the government to step in to strengthen the law to stop abusers.
We are urging the government to set up an economic abuse task force, working with us and the financial services industry, to prevent abusers from using joint mortgages to destroy lives. It’s the only way to ensure survivors and their children can have a safe home and live free from abuse.
Share our call to the government on social media by clicking below:
Economic abuse via a joint mortgage can have a devastating, lifelong impact. As part of our research, victim-survivors told us that the abuse left them with mountains of mortgage arrears and destroyed credit ratings. Many were forced into homelessness and a lifetime of housing and economic insecurity. Some feel having their home repossessed or even taking their lives is the only way out.
Right now, banks are limited in what they can do to stop perpetrators from using joint mortgages to inflict economic abuse. As a result, survivors feel trapped with dangerous abusers, putting them at risk of harm or being killed. Over 1,000 UK women who have or had a joint mortgage in the last two years, surveyed by Opinium on our behalf, were asked about whether they had experienced mortgage-related abuse from a current or ex-partner.
Over three-quarters (78%) of women who experienced joint mortgage abuse felt unable to leave their partner or an unsafe living arrangement due to abuse through the joint mortgage.
Nearly half (49%) of women who experienced joint mortgage abuse had to cut back on utilities or go without essentials, such as food, clothing, or toiletries, to cover monthly mortgage repayments.
Almost nine in ten (89%) of women who experienced joint mortgage abuse experienced negative mental health impacts as a result, such as anxiety, depression, panic attacks, or suicidal thoughts.
This section includes detailed accounts of domestic abuse, including economic abuse, mental health needs, self-harm, and suicide. Please read with care.
From the information shared with us by victim-survivors, perpetrators can use a joint mortgage as a form of economic abuse by:
Exploiting the victim-survivor’s joint mortgage liability by forcing them to pay all or more than their ‘agreed share’ of the mortgage, even when the victim-survivor has been forced to flee the property. This also includes accruing debts against the property or mortgage for which the victim-survivor is liable to repay.
Annie had cohabitated for over 20 years with her abusive partner before she felt able to leave with her young children. She left while he was out of the house, during the summer holidays, after giving in her notice on a secure full-time job. Annie began renting a property far from the abuser and near her family, while the perpetrator remained in their mortgaged home.
Annie had already endured many years of coercive and controlling behaviour, including economic abuse, which prevented her from leaving the abuser. She shared how at the end of every month she had no money left, as she was pressured into paying all the household bills and coerced into taking out loans in her name on his behalf, which he did not reliably repay.
When the abuser wanted to take out a joint mortgage, he insisted that they include a drawdown facility of £20,000, which he stated she could use as a deposit for a future home if the relationship was to break down. Instead, the abuser coerced Annie to jointly consent to him using the drawdown to buy a new expensive car which made leaving even more difficult.
Sabotaging the victim-survivor’s ability to repay the mortgage and keep a roof over theirs and their children’s heads. This includes behaviours such as preventing the sale or repossession of the property.
Sarah shared that when she left her abusive husband, she was in an extremely vulnerable position. Her arm was in plaster after his physical assault on her, she was pregnant with young children to care for and had been forced to leave her career due to the impact of the abuse.
Even after separation, Sarah remained financially tied to the abuser, through the joint mortgage and child maintenance, to meet her children’s basic needs and keep a roof over their heads. Six months after separating, the abuser stopped paying the child maintenance and stopped contributing to the joint mortgage on the home where Sarah was living with her children.
Sarah knew she could not maintain the mortgage repayments without his financial support, and she did not feel safe financially relying on him to do so. Instead, she decided the best financial decision was to sell the house while it had capital and use her share of the equity to make a fresh start for herself and her children, who did not feel safe living in the ‘home’ where the abuser had caused so much harm. However, the abuser used his position as a joint mortgage holder to refuse the sale of the property while continuing to withhold any form of child maintenance or contribute towards his agreed share of the joint mortgage.
Restricting the victim-survivor’s ability to make decisions regarding their mortgage which are in their best financial interest, as well as controlling their access to economic resources used to pay the monthly mortgage.
When Tina left her abusive ex-partner, they agreed through a solicitor that he would continue to contribute to the joint mortgage until their child had completed their education. With a successful career, a good credit score, and a good mortgage repayment rate, Tina believed she could soon pay off the mortgage and achieve financial stability and freedom after separation.
This all ended a year later, when the abuser suddenly stopped contributing towards the joint mortgage, and Tina was left to support her child and pay the mortgage on her own. When the mortgage’s fixed-term interest rate ended later that year, the abuser used his position as a joint account holder to refuse to consent to a new fixed-term interest rate. Tina was forced to solely pay the mortgage on a variable interest rate which at the time was 4.99%. This caused the repayments to rise by nearly £500 per month.
Despite Tina explaining to her lender her struggle to make the repayments on her own at this rate, and the abuser’s intentional use of the joint mortgage to cause her harm, the bank wouldn’t let her move to a fixed-term rate without the abuser’s consent.
We are urging the government to set up a cross-government task force on economic abuse with financial services, legal, and domestic abuse experts to strengthen protections for victim-survivors and stop perpetrators from using joint mortgages to abuse.
Our report is also calling for:
You can help amplify our call to the government by sharing our pre-populated post on social media. Simply click one of the buttons below to share our post on your profile.
If you have experienced economic abuse, you are not alone. There are people and organisations that can help. We have information on support that is available — check out our housing resources below.
Surviving Economic Abuse is a registered charity. If you would like to support our work you can make a donation or become a regular giver. Visit our donations page for more information
© Copyright 2024 Surviving Economic Abuse | Registered Charity Number 1173256
