We aim to make our website as accessible as possible. However if you use a screen reader and require debt advice you may find it easier to phone us instead. Our phone number is 0 8 0 0 1 3 8 1 1 1 1. Freephone (including all mobiles).

Filed away: The experiences of victim-survivors with coerced debts during and after economic abuse

  Download the report

This research briefing gives fresh insight into the extent and nature of coerced debt, with recommendations on the policy changes needed to support victim-survivors of economic abuse with coerced debts in a fair and just way.

Using StepChange analysis of recent YouGov polling we commissioned, this briefing segments the groups affected by coerced debt, provides an in-depth understanding of how perpetrators coerce and control victim-survivors, and illustrates the impacts of this behaviour and of the coerced debts themselves. It also explores victim-survivors’ perceptions of the behaviour and demonstrates how this interacts with their experiences of seeking support.i

Please note: the following contains details of domestic abuse, including violence, and mentions of suicidal ideation, self-harm and suicide attempts, which some readers may find distressing.

Key findings

In previous research we published, we estimated that 1.6 million UK adults – or 3% of the population – experienced coerced debt in the year ending November 2024ii. This new research looks more closely at the experiences of those who have experienced coerced debt, finding that:

Those who had experienced coerced debt and responded to our survey were diverse in gender, age and background.

Half (53%) experienced emotional abuse and manipulation, but women respondents were more likely to experience stalking or harassment (15% of women vs 11% of men) and/or physical threats or violence (14% vs 11%).

More than three quarters of respondents (78%) said that they had at least one outstanding debt as a direct result of the perpetrator's coercive and controlling behaviour and over half (57%) reported having two or more outstanding debts.

The most common debt type taken out in victim-survivors’ names was credit card debt (49%). Other common debt types were debts owed to family and friends (27%), consumer loans like personal loans (23%), interest-free buy now, pay later debts (20%). Utility (energy, water or telecoms) and housing (rent or mortgage) arrears were also common (19% and 15% respectively).

Almost three-quarters (70%) of respondents with coerced debts did not seek any help with their debts. Nearly half (45%) of this group said that they did not seek support due to shame and embarrassment. Almost a third (32%) said they did not think they needed any help, and 30% reported that they did not know what help was available.

Over half (55%) of victim-survivors did not try to get their coerced debts written off. Women were significantly less likely to try to get their debts written off than men – 74% of female respondents did not try to get their debts written off, compared to 39% of men.

Under a third (28%) of victim-survivors had at least one of their coerced debts written off in part or in full. This figure was significantly higher among men (45%) than women (11%).

As a result of their coerced debts, most respondents (85%) reported experiencing at least one negative financial impact, such as going without essentials, using borrowing as a coping mechanism, and getting behind on loan repayments.

Around half (48%) experienced at least one negative impact on their credit record and women were disproportionately affected (56% compared to 40% of men).

Over a third (35%) said that they were declined for at least one financial product or service, such as a loan or credit card, internet or mobile contract, or a tenancy, mortgage or job, due to problems with their credit rating. This figure was higher among parents with children under the age of 18 (44%), those in receipt of Universal Credit (54%), and renters (51%).

82% said coercive and controlling behaviours leading to debt had a fair amount or a great deal of an impact on their mental health, while two-thirds said that it had a fair amount or great deal of an impact on their physical health and wellbeing. Over two-thirds (67%) said that it had a fair amount or a great deal of an impact on their relationships with friends and family, and around half (49%) said that it had a fair amount or a great deal of an impact on their jobs.

In qualitative responses, respondents frequently cited depression or low mood, stress and anxiety, worry, and diminished confidence/self worth as a result of the coerced debts Suicidal thoughts, self-harm behaviours, and suicide attempts were also cited.

Around half (49%) of those who had experienced coerced debt did not immediately recognise the behaviour they experienced as wrong.

Recommendations

Government, regulators and industry should strengthen and build on the direction of travel set out in the Financial Inclusion Strategy to embed the principle of economic justice in policy and regulation.

The Government should develop definitions of coerced debt and economic justice to guide wider stakeholders. This definition should include fraudulent debts built up in the context of economic abuse to ensure comprehensive support for victim-survivors.

The Government should set out steps to work across departments to address legal and other barriers to economic justice including joint mortgage abuse, ‘joint and several liability’ barriers to separating joint debts, and economic abuse through the Child Maintenance Service and the courts.

The Government should extend the principle of economic justice to the public sector, working with departments and local authorities to ensure a consistent approach to coerced debt.

The Government should work with the Money and Pensions Service (MaPS) and the debt advice sector to develop and commission sufficient specialist advice, including training for non-specialist advisors to identify economic abuse, and support the continued roll out of the Economic Abuse Evidence Form.

The Government should increase awareness and take-up of help by delivering an awareness-raising programme for economic abuse and coerced debt aimed at victim-survivors. This should include a data-driven deconstruction of the drivers of low awareness and low support-seeking behaviour, including a focus on male victim-survivors, who may face particular stigma and shame because of their gender. Tying in with the Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy (2025 – 2030), this campaign should last until at least the end of 2030.

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) should develop guidance for financial services on economic abuse and coerced debt, building on Surviving Economic Abuse’s (SEA's) ‘Good practice guide for financial services’ and UK Finance’s Financial Abuse Code of Practice. The guidance should address Consumer Duty obligations and economic abuse, clarify financial services’ scope and flexibility to separate joint debts safely, and provide clarity for the financial services sector on how fraudulent debts occurring alongside directly coerced debts should be dealt with.

UK regulators should coordinate through UK regulators Network (UKRN) to agree principles to deliver a consistent cross-sector approach to coerced debt that supports economic justice, and ensure those principles translate into regulatory rules and guidance.

The Government, the credit information industry and stakeholders should work together to tackle the long-term credit file impacts of coerced debt, so that victim-survivors aren’t left paying the price for their abusers’ behaviour.

HM Treasury should set out clear expectations for the development of an effective credit information remedy and repair framework for victim-survivors by the end of this Parliament, so that their credit files reflect their true creditworthiness, and not the abuse they have experienced.

The Credit Information Governance Body should prioritise the development of that framework and support for victim-survivors of economic abuse in its work programme, timetabling action as soon as possible and taking account of any enabling steps needed.

The Ministry of Justice and HM Courts & Tribunals Service should work together to ensure that CCJs that arise in cases of economic abuse are removed from the Register of Judgments without any application fee.

Background

Economic abuse is a devastating aspect of domestic abuse, one which is not well known and remains poorly understood among the public.

Not only does economic abuse enable a perpetrator to exert control beyond the physical and the psychological, making it even more difficult for victim-survivors to leave, but it also creates long-lasting financial impacts.

In ‘Too close to home’, published in March 2025, we explored the experiences of our debt advice clients who we identified as having experienced coerced debt. This research also included a focus group with StepChange debt advisors and national polling we commissioned YouGov to carry out

We estimated that almost one in eight of our debt advice clients had experienced coerced debt, with harmful short-, medium- and long-term impacts that keep victim-survivors tethered to the abuser even after the abuse had ended.

We found, consistent with other evidence,iii that as a result of debts built up in the victim-survivor’s name, they were often left with derogatory marks on their credit file, like missed payments, defaults or County Court Judgments.

These marks can remain on a person’s credit file for six years. As a result, victim-survivors often find their file impaired and credit score depleted, making it much more difficult for them to access not only affordable credit, but also vital products and services, housing, and even employment opportunities.

This research also found that most UK adults had never heard of the terms ‘economic abuse’ and ‘coerced debt.’iv This is concerning because, among those affected, our latest research finds that the majority of victim-survivors did not seek help for their coerced debts.

Often, this was because they did not know that the actions of the perpetrator were wrong and/or they didn’t know help was available. Yet, while dedicated help and support do exist for victim-survivors, it is inconsistent and patchy, with luck dictating whether they get the support they need, like having financial arrangements safely separated and coerced debts written off.

Far too many victim-survivors are falling through the gaps and, most importantly, too few are achieving economic justice. Instead, they are left trapped in abusive situations or paying the price for their abuser’s behaviour, even long after they have fled the abuse. For example, they are paying back coerced debts and are often left with impaired credit files, all because of the abuser’s behaviour.

  Find out more about our methodology and terminology

In spite of progress there is much more work to be done

Significant progress has been made over the last decade in recognising economic abuse as a key aspect of domestic abuse, including in law in the Domestic Abuse Act (2021). Regulatory and good practice guidance has been developed by the FCAv, UK Financevi, and Surviving Economic Abuse (SEA)vii, and the Consumer Duty, introduced in 2023, placed new obligations on firms to act to prevent foreseeable harm and deliver good outcomes for consumers, including those in vulnerable situations.

However, our research found that despite this victim-survivors continue to receive varied outcomes when they seek help. Support can sometimes be positive and helpful, with some firms able to deliver life-changing help. But too often support is suboptimal or poor. As a result, victim-survivors do not get economic justice.

This piece of research is a follow up to that report, seeking to address questions that emerged in ‘Too close to home’, to dig deeper into some of the key demographic groups affected by coerced debt, and to understand perpetrator behaviours. It also explores victim-survivors’ perceptions of perpetrator behaviour and their experiences of seeking support, as well as gaining a more in-depth and systematic understanding of the impact of coerced debt.

Would you like to find out more?

Email us to discuss or request more information about this report at policy@stepchange.org

References on this page