Fig. 9: Impacts of coerced debt on credit files
| |
Total |
Male |
Female |
Additional vulnerability |
| My score fell |
40% |
32% |
49% |
50% |
| Defaults on loans, credit cards or other types of credit |
14% |
10% |
17% |
18% |
| Missed payments on loans or a mortgage |
10% |
10% |
10% |
12% |
| Being put on an insolvency or debt solution |
7% |
5% |
9% |
8% |
| One or more County Court Judgement (CCJ) |
7% |
5% |
10% |
10% |
| Flagged on fraud databases or having fraud markers |
1% |
1% |
1% |
2% |
Around half of respondents (48%) experienced at least one negative impact on their credit record. Just over a fifth (21%) experienced two or more negative credit impacts. So, not all people with coerced debts experience negative impacts on their credit record, which suggests that many of them must be keeping up with their repayments.
While this is positive for their credit records, it is not a good outcome for victim-survivors of domestic abuse if they are paying back coerced debts.
Women were disproportionately affected. Over half of women (56%) experienced at least one negative impact on their credit record, compared with two in five men (40%). A quarter of women (25%) reported at least two negative impacts, compared with 18% of men.
People with additional vulnerabilities were also particularly affected. Nearly six in ten (59%) experienced at least one negative impact on their credit record, and more than a quarter (27%) experienced two or more. This highlights how vulnerability can amplify financial harm, leaving individuals facing long-term barriers to financial stability and recovery.
Qualitative responses we received on this question threw into sharp relief quite how much victim-survivors were impacted by the credit file impacts of their coerced debts.
One female victim-survivor, for example, wrote: “My credit score went down so much that I can’t get anything on credit, not even internet or a mobile phone now.”
The figure was similar across men (32%) and women (39%), but we saw greater discrepancies among other groups. For example, 44% of parents with children under the age of 18 were declined at least one product and 37% of parents of children over the age of 18 (were declined at least one product, compared to 27% of those without children. The figure was also higher among those in receipt of Universal Credit (54%) than those not receiving UC (31%), and higher among renters (51%) compared to owners (27%). The figure jumps for those with additional vulnerabilities (45% experienced at least one negative impact).