Concerning figures have shown that domestic abusers are ‘using joint mortgages’ against women in a bid to cause economic harm – these ‘mortgage based abuse traps’ prevent victims from leaving or render them economically destitute.
A report by charity Surviving Economic Abuse has revealed that one in eight UK women who have held a joint mortgage in the last two years have experienced economic abuse by a current or former partner.
These ‘mortgage traps’ have seen perpetrators refusing to pay their agreed share of the mortgage, agree to new terms or sell the shared property.
‘Locked into a mortgage, locked out of my home’, funded by the Financial Fairness Trust and the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust, uncovers how domestic abusers are using joint mortgages to plunge survivors into debt and homelessness.
The charity is now 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.
Over 1,000 UK women who have or had a joint mortgage in the last two years, surveyed by Opinium on behalf of the charity, were asked about whether they had experienced mortgage-related abuse from a current or ex-partner. Of the women who experienced this form of abuse it was shown that three quarters felt unable to leave their partner or an unsafe living arrangement and nearly half had to cut back on utilities or forgo essentials such as food, clothing and toiletries to cover mortgage payments.
Nine in 10 surveyed experienced a negative impact to their mental health due to the abuse such as anxiety, depression and panic attacks.
Shortly after Sarah(name changed) left her abusive ex-husband, he stopped contributing to the joint mortgage and began to withhold child maintenance payments. She knew she couldn’t afford the mortgage repayments and meet her and her children’s basic needs, but the abuser blocked every attempt Sarah made to sell the property or negotiate a more competitive interest rate.
This pushed Sarah and her children into further hardship. Sarah has been forced to pay tens of thousands of pounds in divorce and financial remedy proceedings, yet she has been unable to remove the abuser from the mortgage.
Speaking about her experience, Sarah said:
“I was forced to use food banks and even stopped putting the heating on in the winter just to pay as much of the mortgage as possible each month. But I still couldn’t afford to maintain the mortgage and make ends meet, particularly as the cost of living continued to rise, so I was finally forced into arrears.
“Over a decade since I left my abusive husband, he remains on the joint mortgage. I can’t sell the property without his permission and, at any point, he can use his position to stop me from making mortgage repayments by withholding child support payments. Me and my children remain trapped in a mortgage prison with no way out.”
The report is calling for financial services firms to boost their support for customers experiencing joint mortgage-based abuse and take steps available under existing guidelines to make it harder for perpetrators to use joint mortgages to cause economic harm.
The financial services regulator to clarify and strengthen regulations and guidance for firms to avoid causing foreseeable harm to customers experiencing economic abuse through perpetrators’ misuse of joint mortgage products and services and the government to urgently convene a cross-government task force on economic abuse, focusing on legal solutions to prevent perpetrators from causing significant harm through joint mortgages. Furthermore, the government should improve financial remedy proceedings by ensuring cases have regard to economic abuse and orders can be properly enforced, as well as introduce cohabitation reform to award legal rights to cohabiting couples.
Under current laws, both mortgage holders are jointly and separately responsible for the whole mortgage debt, and any changes to the terms, such as switching interest rates or removing one party from the mortgage, require both parties’ consent. This stands even in domestic abuse cases.
Sam Smethers, Interim CEO of Surviving Economic Abuse, said: “Mortgage abuse is a hidden crime that’s destroying the lives of hundreds of thousands of survivors. Right now, domestic abusers are using joint mortgages to cause economic devastation by refusing to pay their agreed share, agree to new terms, or sell up. Being forced to foot the full mortgage bill makes it near-impossible for survivors to flee to safety. For those who do escape, they remain tied to the abuser who can plunge them into mountains of debt.
“Survivors are doing everything they can to make ends meet – cutting back on food, turning off the heating, and borrowing money to keep up with repayments. But right now, banks are limited in what they can do to stop abusers from causing a lifetime of debt and homelessness for survivors.
“While banks can do more to support survivors within current rules, only an urgent law change can stop abusers from destroying lives. We urge the government to set up an economic abuse task force to prevent abusers from weaponising joint mortgages. It must also make sure tackling economic abuse is at the heart of its mission to halve violence against women and girls in a decade. It’s the only way to ensure survivors and their children can have a safe home.”
2 responses
The failure of one joint owner or an occupier to pay or contribute or incur high utility bills (gas/electric/water) aka the financial abuse weapon isn’t a recent scenario on breakdown of a relationship. It is a type of abuse or control to cause misery.
If she has spent tens of thousands of pounds without a result my first thoughts (without knowing the full facts) are:- (i) was she not eligible for legal aid? (ii) have proceedings been issued? and (iii) what on earth are her legal representatives doing to help her apart from racking up costs.
If a final financial order was agreed which allowed her to stay in the property but meant she was reliant on him to pay his share of the mortgage to enable her to do so, was she warned of the risks if she agreed to this settlement and he failed to pay? Surely his past behaviour would have shown he would not stick to any agreement.