CAUSAL CHAIN, SYSTEMIC FAILURE & THE EROSION OF JUSTICE

Understanding How Economic Abuse, Coercive Debt and Institutional Failure Can Lead to Homelessness

INTRODUCTION

Coercive financial control, economic abuse, and coercive debt are recognised under UK law as forms of domestic abuse and, in certain circumstances, criminal conduct.

They represent more than financial hardship.

They are mechanisms of power and control.

When left unchallenged, they can trigger a chain of events that progressively strips an individual of autonomy, financial independence, housing security, access to justice, and ultimately their fundamental rights.

This article examines that causal chain and the institutional failures that can allow it to continue unchecked.

THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK

Coercive Control

The Serious Crime Act 2015 s.76 recognises coercive and controlling behaviour within intimate and family relationships.

This includes conduct designed to create dependency, restrict financial freedom, isolate a victim, or prevent them from exercising autonomy.

Economic Abuse

The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 s.1(4) formally recognises economic abuse as domestic abuse.

Economic abuse includes behaviour that adversely affects an individual's ability to:

— acquire money

— use money

— maintain financial independence

— access goods and services

— obtain housing and security

The legislation recognises that financial control can be as damaging as physical violence.

Financial Disclosure Obligations

The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 requires full and frank disclosure in financial proceedings.

Courts are expected to consider:

— financial circumstances

— needs

— disadvantage

— conduct where relevant

— fairness and proportionality

The integrity of the entire process depends upon truthful disclosure.

Fraud and Misrepresentation

Where assets, liabilities, income, ownership interests, or financial arrangements are deliberately concealed or misrepresented, issues may arise under:

— Fraud Act 2006

— common law fraud principles

— abuse of process principles

— professional conduct obligations

UNDERSTANDING COERCIVE DEBT

Coercive debt is increasingly recognised as a significant consequence of domestic abuse.

It includes:

— debt incurred without consent

— debt incurred through deception

— debt incurred under pressure

— debt incurred because legitimate means of support have been deliberately withheld

Although the debt may appear voluntary on paper, the reality can be very different.

Where an individual is forced into borrowing to survive because financial resources have been deliberately restricted or withheld, the debt becomes part of the abuse itself.

The liability may appear financial.

The cause is coercive control.

THE PROFESSIONAL DUTY QUESTION

Legal professionals occupy positions of trust.

Solicitors and barristers are bound by:

— professional conduct rules

— duties to the court

— duties of integrity

— duties not to mislead

— obligations to uphold the administration of justice

They are expected to recognise circumstances where:

— disclosure is incomplete

— vulnerability is present

— inequality of arms exists

— procedural advantage is being exploited

The administration of justice depends upon these safeguards functioning effectively.

Where they do not, confidence in the system is undermined.

THE INSTITUTIONAL FAILURE PROBLEM

The most significant issue is not the existence of legal protections.

The United Kingdom already possesses extensive legislation.

The deeper issue is implementation.

Repeated inquiries, reviews, and reports have identified concerns regarding:

— domestic abuse response

— economic abuse

— vulnerability recognition

— procedural fairness

— access to justice

— disclosure failures

— safeguarding implementation

The recurring pattern is striking.

The rules exist.

The powers exist.

The guidance exists.

Yet meaningful intervention frequently fails to occur.

This creates what SAFECHAIN™ describes as an implementation gap between legal protection and practical protection.

THE FULL CAUSAL CHAIN

When viewed as isolated events, each stage may appear unrelated.

When viewed collectively, a clear pattern emerges.

Stage 1 — Coercive financial control and economic abuse.

↓

Stage 2 — Deliberate restriction of income, resources, opportunities, support, or access to financial independence.

↓

Stage 3 — The victim becomes dependent and is forced into debt, borrowing, arrears, or financial vulnerability.

↓

Stage 4 — Disclosure failures, concealment, misrepresentation, or procedural imbalance emerge.

↓

Stage 5 — The individual's financial position deteriorates further. Credit records are damaged. Savings are depleted. Resources disappear.

↓

Stage 6 — The person becomes unable to fund representation, expert evidence, housing alternatives, or effective participation.

↓

Stage 7 — Inequality of arms develops. One party possesses resources and procedural advantage while the other struggles to participate effectively.

↓

Stage 8 — Safeguarding concerns, vulnerability indicators, or procedural protections fail to operate effectively.

↓

Stage 9 — The individual experiences housing insecurity, prolonged instability, psychological harm, and social exclusion.

↓

Stage 10 — No meaningful remedy is obtained. Recovery becomes increasingly difficult. The harm becomes self-perpetuating.

THE HUMAN RIGHTS DIMENSION

When these failures combine, the consequences extend beyond financial loss.

Fundamental rights may be engaged, including:

Article 6 ECHR — The right to a fair hearing and effective participation.

Article 8 ECHR — The right to respect for private life, family life, home, autonomy, and dignity.

Article 1 of Protocol 1 — The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.

Article 3 ECHR — Where severe degradation, suffering, or treatment reaches the required threshold.

The issue is therefore not simply financial.

It is constitutional.

It concerns access to justice, equality before the law, and the ability of institutions to protect those they are designed to serve.

THE BROADER QUESTION

The central question is not whether laws exist.

They do.

The question is whether those laws are being implemented effectively enough to prevent foreseeable harm.

When warning signs are repeatedly identified but meaningful intervention does not occur, the problem ceases to be individual.

It becomes institutional.

Justice requires more than legislation.

It requires implementation.

It requires accountability.

And it requires institutions willing to act before vulnerability becomes crisis, crisis becomes homelessness, and homelessness becomes another preventable example of systemic failure.

Copyright Notice

© 2026 Samantha Avril-Andreassen. All rights reserved.

SAFECHAINN Ltd (Company No. 12038453).

SAFECHAIN™ is a governance, safeguarding, institutional integrity and accountability architecture authored by Samantha Avril-Andreassen. This article forms part of the SAFECHAIN™ Governance Series. Reproduction or implementation without permission is prohibited.