Economic Abuse Is Not a Financial Problem. It Is a Governance Problem.

Why the Long-Term Consequences of Economic Abuse Expose Failures Across Banking, Credit, Housing, Regulation and Justice

By Samantha Avril-Andreassen, LLB (Hons), FRSA

Founder, SAFECHAIN™ | Author | Researcher | Safeguarding Framework Developer | Systems Innovator

Introduction

When people hear the term economic abuse, they often think about money.

They think about bank accounts.

Debt.

Missed payments.

Credit cards.

Mortgage arrears.

County Court Judgments.

Bankruptcy.

Financial hardship.

But economic abuse is not fundamentally a financial problem.

It is a governance problem.

Money is simply the mechanism through which control is exercised.

The true harm lies in the destruction of autonomy, participation, opportunity, security, and dignity.

Economic abuse affects where a person lives, whether they can work, whether they can obtain credit, whether they can access justice, and whether they can rebuild their life after abuse.

The consequences extend far beyond a balance sheet.

What begins as coercive control frequently evolves into a multi-system failure involving banks, credit reference agencies, courts, regulators, housing providers, local authorities, and safeguarding institutions.

The result is often not merely financial loss.

The result is long-term exclusion.

The Law Already Recognises Economic Abuse

The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 recognised what survivors and specialists have long understood:

Economic abuse is domestic abuse.

Section 1(4) defines economic abuse as behaviour that substantially affects a person's ability to acquire, use, or maintain money, property, goods, or services.

The Serious Crime Act 2015 similarly recognises coercive and controlling behaviour as criminal conduct.

The legislative position is therefore relatively clear.

Economic abuse is not a private financial disagreement.

It is a recognised form of domestic abuse.

The question is not whether the law exists.

The question is whether institutions are responding appropriately once the abuse occurs.

The Coercive Debt Lifecycle

One of the least understood consequences of economic abuse is coercive debt.

Coercive debt occurs when debt is incurred because the victim's options have been deliberately restricted.

The debt may appear voluntary.

The circumstances are not.

A victim may be forced to:

• borrow to pay rent

• borrow to feed children

• borrow to fund legal proceedings

• borrow to survive after financial resources are withheld

• rely on credit because access to joint assets is blocked

The debt appears on the victim's credit file.

The abuse does not.

The debt remains visible.

The coercion disappears from the record.

This creates a profound governance failure.

Institutions often record the consequence while failing to recognise the cause.

The Hidden Cost of Economic Abuse

Financial abuse does not end when the relationship ends.

Its effects can persist for years or even decades.

A damaged credit file can affect:

• access to mortgages

• access to rental housing

• insurance premiums

• employment opportunities

• business finance

• personal independence

• recovery after abuse

Many survivors leave abusive relationships already carrying financial liabilities they did not freely choose.

Yet the financial system largely treats those liabilities as ordinary consumer debt.

The abuse disappears.

The debt remains.

The victim continues paying the price long after the perpetrator has left.

What StepChange Reveals

Research from debt charities and financial support organisations consistently demonstrates the link between domestic abuse and debt vulnerability.

StepChange has repeatedly identified domestic abuse as a significant driver of problem debt.

Survivors frequently report:

• debts incurred under pressure

• financial dependency

• inability to access independent funds

• damaged credit histories

• long-term financial exclusion

The findings demonstrate something important.

Economic abuse is not an isolated safeguarding issue.

It is a financial systems issue.

The consequences are carried directly into the banking and credit ecosystem.

The FCA and the Banking Sector

The Financial Conduct Authority has increasingly recognised vulnerability within financial services.

This is an important development.

However, vulnerability frameworks remain incomplete if economic abuse is treated solely as a customer service issue.

Economic abuse should be recognised as a safeguarding issue.

Banks often possess early warning indicators:

• unusual account activity

• coerced borrowing

• financial dependency

• repeated emergency lending

• patterns consistent with economic control

The challenge is that these indicators are rarely connected to safeguarding responses.

The financial system sees transactions.

The survivor experiences coercion.

The two are not always connected.

SAFECHAIN™ argues that financial institutions require dedicated Economic Abuse Response Protocols capable of identifying patterns of coercive financial control before substantial harm occurs.

Credit Files: The Invisible Barrier

Credit reference agencies occupy a largely overlooked position within this discussion.

Credit files increasingly determine:

• housing access

• financial access

• insurance access

• employment opportunities

• economic participation

Yet credit reporting systems record debt.

They do not record coercion.

A survivor may spend years rebuilding credit damaged by abuse while the circumstances that created the debt remain invisible.

This creates what SAFECHAIN™ describes as a Participation Deficit.

The individual's ability to participate fully in society becomes constrained by a record that reflects outcomes but not causes.

The question therefore arises:

Should there be a recognised framework for identifying coercive debt within credit reporting systems?

The answer increasingly appears to be yes.

The Courts and Economic Abuse

Economic abuse does not stop at the banking sector.

It enters the justice system.

The Domestic Abuse Commissioner's Everyday Business report highlighted the prevalence of domestic abuse issues throughout family court proceedings.

The report demonstrated that domestic abuse is not a peripheral issue.

It is often central to proceedings.

Yet evidence of abuse does not always translate into meaningful procedural protection.

This is particularly significant in financial remedy proceedings where disclosure, resources, and equality of arms are critical.

A party experiencing economic abuse may already be operating from a position of severe disadvantage before proceedings even begin.

Without effective intervention, that disadvantage can become entrenched.

Scratching the Surface and Court Culture

The Scratching the Surface report published by Right to Equality raises additional concerns regarding court culture and judicial treatment of domestic abuse allegations.

Its findings suggest that cultural attitudes, assumptions, and credibility assessments can influence outcomes in ways that disadvantage victims.

The significance of these findings extends beyond individual cases.

They raise governance questions about:

• institutional culture

• unconscious bias

• safeguarding implementation

• consistency of decision-making

• vulnerability recognition

Where economic abuse is misunderstood or minimised, the resulting decisions may inadvertently reinforce the very harms the legal system is intended to address.

The Governance Failure

Taken together, the evidence reveals a pattern.

The law recognises economic abuse.

The financial sector recognises vulnerability.

The courts recognise domestic abuse.

Regulators recognise safeguarding obligations.

Yet survivors continue to experience predictable and repeatable harm.

Why?

Because recognition is not implementation.

The issue is not the absence of law.

The issue is the absence of coordinated governance.

The systems operate independently.

The harm does not.

A New Framework for Economic Abuse

Economic abuse should no longer be viewed as a financial issue sitting within a domestic abuse framework.

It should be viewed as a governance issue spanning:

• financial services

• housing

• credit reporting

• safeguarding

• family justice

• regulation

• public policy

The challenge is systemic.

The response must be systemic.

SAFECHAIN™ proposes that economic abuse should be treated as a cross-sector safeguarding risk requiring coordinated intervention across institutions rather than fragmented responses confined to individual sectors.

Conclusion

The greatest misunderstanding surrounding economic abuse is the belief that its primary consequence is debt.

Debt is merely the symptom.

The real damage lies in the loss of autonomy, opportunity, participation, security, and dignity.

Economic abuse is not simply about money.

It is about power.

And wherever power is exercised without accountability, governance becomes the central issue.

Until financial institutions, regulators, courts, credit systems, housing providers, and policymakers begin treating economic abuse as a governance challenge rather than a narrow financial problem, the cycle will continue.

The warning signs are already visible.

The evidence already exists.

The question is whether institutions are prepared to act.

© 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.

Version 1.0
SAFECHAIN™ Governance Series