THE COMMERCIALISATION OF DOMESTIC ABUSE
Why Reports Alone Will Not Stop Coerced Debt, Financial Erasure and Institutional Harm
SAFECHAIN™ Policy Commentary
By Samantha Avril-Andreassen FRSA
Introduction
The United Kingdom has produced report after report examining domestic abuse.
Parliamentary inquiries.
Inspectorate reviews.
Commissioner reports.
Charity research.
Academic studies.
Regulatory consultations.
The findings are remarkably consistent.
Victims continue to face:
economic abuse;
coerced debt;
housing insecurity;
participation barriers;
financial exclusion;
unequal access to justice.
The problem is no longer a lack of knowledge.
The problem is implementation.
The uncomfortable question facing policymakers is this:
How many reports must be written before institutions begin changing their behaviour?
The Financial Consequences of Abuse
Domestic abuse is frequently discussed through the lens of physical safety.
Far less attention is given to financial destruction.
For many victim-survivors, the greatest long-term harm is economic.
Income disappears.
Savings disappear.
Credit scores deteriorate.
Mortgages become inaccessible.
Businesses collapse.
Employment opportunities diminish.
Financial independence is replaced by dependency, vulnerability and exclusion.
The abuse ends.
The financial consequences do not.
This is the reality identified by recent government commitments concerning coerced debt and credit file recovery.
The challenge is not recognising the problem.
The challenge is preventing institutions from reproducing it.
The Commercialisation of Domestic Abuse
An uncomfortable truth sits at the centre of modern systems.
Domestic abuse has become expensive.
Victims pay.
The state pays.
Charities pay.
Local authorities pay.
Health services pay.
Housing providers pay.
The question rarely asked is:
Who benefits from the continuation of the cycle?
When prolonged litigation generates escalating costs, when financial instability creates dependency, when procedural complexity requires endless intervention, and when survivors remain trapped in systems for years, a form of institutional economy emerges around unresolved harm.
This does not require bad faith.
It requires only a system designed to manage consequences rather than eliminate causes.
Equality Before the Law and the Equality Act
The Equality Act 2010 requires public authorities to have due regard to the impact of decisions upon protected groups.
The challenge is that formal equality does not necessarily produce substantive equality.
A vulnerable litigant facing:
trauma;
housing insecurity;
financial collapse;
health deterioration;
lack of representation;
is not operating from the same starting point as a financially secure opponent with professional support.
The legal system often acknowledges vulnerability.
Far fewer systems adequately adjust for its consequences.
The result is a widening Participation Gap™.
Rights remain theoretically available.
Practical access diminishes.
Financial Remedy Proceedings and Financial Reality
The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 requires courts to consider:
income;
earning capacity;
housing needs;
financial obligations;
future resources;
fairness.
These factors are central to financial remedy proceedings.
The challenge arises when financial vulnerability itself becomes invisible.
A person experiencing economic abuse may appear financially weak on paper.
The critical question is why.
How did the vulnerability arise?
Was it caused by market forces?
Personal decisions?
Ill health?
Or was it linked to coercive control, financial manipulation, exclusion, or abuse?
Without examining causation, financial outcomes risk becoming detached from reality.
The Macpherson Legacy
The Macpherson Report introduced a principle that remains highly relevant today.
Institutions can fail not only through individual actions but through systemic structures, cultures and practices.
The significance of Macpherson extends beyond policing.
Its central lesson applies across institutions:
Good intentions do not eliminate institutional failure.
Procedures alone do not eliminate institutional failure.
Policies alone do not eliminate institutional failure.
Outcomes matter.
If vulnerable individuals repeatedly experience poorer outcomes despite formal protections, institutions must ask difficult questions about why those outcomes persist.
Why Reports Are Not Enough
The United Kingdom does not suffer from a shortage of reports.
It suffers from a shortage of implementation.
Most reports follow a predictable cycle:
Harm identified.
Recommendations issued.
Limited implementation.
Harm reappears.
New report commissioned.
The cycle repeats.
The result is institutional fatigue.
Victims continue carrying the burden while systems continue studying the problem.
At some point, reform must move beyond diagnosis.
The Missing Piece: Accountability
The next phase of reform must focus upon accountability.
Not symbolic accountability.
Operational accountability.
Questions regulators should be asking include:
How is coerced debt identified?
How is financial abuse recorded?
How are credit files protected?
How are safeguarding indicators shared?
How are vulnerable customers supported?
How are repeat failures identified?
What consequences follow when institutions ignore risk indicators?
Without accountability, policy commitments remain aspirations.
The Role of Financial Regulators
The FCA Consumer Duty has fundamentally shifted expectations around vulnerability.
The challenge now is translating those principles into operational practice.
Financial institutions need:
safeguarding triggers;
vulnerability markers;
coordinated disclosure mechanisms;
credit rehabilitation pathways;
cross-agency communication protocols.
Without operational infrastructure, vulnerability remains recognised but unmanaged.
From Reports to Reform
SAFECHAIN™ argues that the future of safeguarding lies in systems that prevent harm rather than merely document it.
The objective should not be another report.
The objective should be measurable institutional change.
That requires:
accountability;
transparency;
data sharing;
safeguarding architecture;
implementation mechanisms;
regulatory oversight.
Most importantly, it requires recognition that financial autonomy is not merely an economic issue.
It is a safeguarding issue.
It is a participation issue.
It is a human rights issue.
Conclusion
The United Kingdom already knows the problem.
The evidence exists.
The reports exist.
The recommendations exist.
The question now is whether institutions are willing to move beyond observation and into action.
Because every year that meaningful reform is delayed, more people experience:
coerced debt;
financial exclusion;
housing instability;
damaged credit;
reduced participation;
diminished autonomy.
The abuse may end.
But without structural reform, the consequences continue.
And that is not recovery.
That is merely a different form of harm.
LinkedIn Article
© 2026 Samantha Avril-Andreassen. All rights reserved.
SAFECHAINN Ltd (Company No. 12038453)
Version 1.0