Domestic abusers weaponising joint mortgages by refusing to pay their share

[IwantToRetire]

Domestic abusers are pushing victims into spiralling debt and homelessness by weaponising joint mortgages against them - with 750,000 women in the UK estimated to be affected by mortgage abuse.

A study, by the charity Surviving Economic Abuse, has found one in eight women in the UK who had a joint mortgage in the last two years suffered economic abuse over the arrangement from their current or ex-partner.

Abusers are refusing to fork out for their agreed part of the mortgage, agree to new terms, or sell the property.

continues at https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/joint-mortgage-domestic-abuse-women-b2610118.html

Surviving Economic Abuse https://survivingeconomicabuse.org/

What would you do though? Make it so a joint mortgage must be paid 50/50? What about SAHP? It's abuse and it's awful but I can't see a legal way of preventing it.

Unfortunately this is my view as well. It is awful, but there’s no way of legally preventing it without it also being detrimental to other people (usually women as the SAHP or the one who reduces hours etc to do childcare)

Thanks for such an acceptance of the status quo!

Honestly I expect the campaign group would think enough women even people generally would think something should be done.

Have you read their report.

Or mabye even just a bit of public shaming of men would be helpful.

As coercive control is now recognised as being domestic abuse I would hope the men will be charged and prosecuted.

This has been going on for years!

I think you are making an assumption that it's not possible to create procedures where people are able to to prove the joint provision is being abused.

It's not about implementing a 50/50 spilt for everyone, rather about the provision of a legal "exit" route in cases where financial abuse can be evidenced.

Such evidence is not hard to collect in such circumstances as the abuse relies on a documented refusal to change mortgage providers, secure better rates or to sell a property for reasonable offer - often whilst simultaneously withholding maintenance/child support payments (easily proven via bank transactions or lack thereof. Note: a good reason not to accept cash in hand support).

So has other forms of male violence.

Such strange response to a group trying to campaign to help women.

With that attitude there would be no support services for women.

To add this is a CMS failure.

IMHO refusal to contribute should be factored into the calculation.

The problem is the banks have no authority to charge the mortgage provision and the CMS has no teeth.

As such abusers can use both in a pincer movement as a form of control/revenge/just being an asshole.

My ex husband’s (male) divorce lawyer actively encouraged him to do this. To stop paying the mortgage etc to force me to settle on shitty financial terms (giving him most of the equity etc) asap to get the house sold and him off the mortgage.

I am in the fortunate position that I was able to do so without needing food banks etc. And there was no question of it being a physically dangerous relationship. I can’t imagine how horrific it must be for women trapped in that situation.

The practice should be prohibited in some way in the divorce proceedings (even if you settle - which this practice almost forces you to do) so divorce lawyers can’t advise their clients in this way.

I don’t agree that there should be criminal penalties for not paying debts. There are already legal remedies to force a sale of a joint property. You can’t force someone to pay a joint mortgage indefinitely or make it a crime. Especially if one party has moved out the other may drag their feet selling if they can force the other to keep paying. Ultimately if a couple break up, they need to be incentivised to sell the property and make a clean break.

It’s in everyone’s interests for the property to be sold and dealt with quickly if that’s going to be the outcome. You could get an order to force your ex to pay if that was thought fair on an interim basis. Ultimately default on the mortgage is not in anyone’s interest but neither is matters dragging on.

I actually think it could be prevented. It just needs to be written into the mortgage.

When entering into a joint mortgage, there should be a clause that allows one person to continue paying their share and not be penalised, but the other person is liable for the debt accrued.

obviously if they can’t afford to take over the mortgage, then there should be a way they can take a mortgage holiday for a year, for example, so that court can make a decision on the house.

Also that the person not paying is effectively giving up their share and suffer the effects to their credit rating for defaulting.

as it’s the matrimonial home, family law could be amended so that the house can be awarded fully to the person who maintains payments. They need to penalise abusers.

But again, this wouldn’t be doable without being to the detriment of SAHP/women who work part time and earn less. It also becomes impossible for the bank to do because actually the house is the asset, so if you default on payments the bank reclaims the house- the bank cannot reclaim 50% of a house to account for the 50% someone didn’t pay.

Even if you could get around the not reclaiming half a house thing though and could figure out a way to separate it out into “shares”, you’d have to define those shares legally so that each person’s “share” is reflected in ownership. That means if you’re mum who’s now working part time due to childcare then you can’t afford 50%, you can only afford maybe 20%, so the house is then only 20% yours- it would disadvantage women more than men.

It’s a rubbish situation and there’s no legal answer really other than those which are already in place via TOLATA where you can get a court order to force the sale.

But with respect this sharp practice actually encourages those refusing to contribute suddenly NOT to agree a settlement (and a sale of the house) in a timely manner. Because they live rent free for the period.

And while an interim order sounds like a nice idea, the reality of the court system delays in this country at present is you can’t access that kind of order when you need it.

What is needed is clear judicial guidance that they will penalise men behaving in this way substantively if the matter goes to a hearing.

This happened to me although I didn't realise it counted as abuse. We had the added issue of fixed term ending and he refused to remortgage so the repayments rocketed too. I was completely trapped. He even told our mediator that his plan was to starve me and the children out. I ended up giving in as I couldn't afford to live and i gave in to his financial demands. It was traumatic going through it. On a positive note, life is very very good now (except for him still being a total arse!)

I get that’s it’s incredibly complicated but it’s not impossible. I see what you mean about women working part time being penalised. But I think between the banks and the legal system, there could be a process that locks abusers out of control.

for example, if there’s a dispute and the abuser refuses to pay, then it could trigger ‘special measures’. So, let’s say an abuser refuses to pay because he’s likely to have to give most of the house to the wife. If he stops payment, the bank gives a mortgage holiday for say 12 months, to allow for house sale. If the bank, plus one of the mortgage holders agrees on an offer, it has to be sold. The court decides how the money is split.

or the court quickly decides who gets the house.

there needs to be a way to financially penalise financial abusers.

but part of the problem is the time the courts take. Family courts need to come down on shitty behaviour like a ton of bricks and quickly. I think if there’s a financial possibility of keeping the home above the kids heads, then they need to have greater powers to do that. My friend wanted to buy out her ex, but he made it impossible, refused to accept her money and with rising prices was priced out of her home. This stuff needs to be decided quickly

There’s problems with all scenario’s really, as I say there is no perfect answer that solves this.

• 12 month mortgage holiday: banks will never agree to just off the cuff like this, they can’t really afford to without us all ending up paying more for ours to account for these gaps in payment.
• ”bank and one mortgage holder agrees offer” is never going to be fair when actually each mortgage holder typically owns 100%, it would be incredibly unfair to say that one person can unilaterally decide on the amount and again this could go both ways. A man who knows his ex is going to get 70% of the equity is more likely to agree a low ball offer for example, this idea gives him the power to do that.
• To add to the “bank and one mortgage holder” if we are talking about splitting it by share, the woman is more likely to have the smaller share if kids involved if working PT and it would never be legally fair to say that anyone other than the highest % holder be the one who decides so again, an easy in for a man to fuck his ex over financially.
• Courts can & do decide how money is split and house already but agree it is too slow (and expensive) and so it really should be quicker, but unless more people start doing the job or more facilities are available nothing can be done about the time taken.

I agree though the law should come down hard on men who are deliberately doing this, but there isn’t an obvious way of preventing this legally without it being problematic for somebody else.

On the share thing, if it’s the matrimonial home it should be seen as a 50/50 share regardless of how little the woman puts in. Or if the court could make quick decisions, it could say 70 per cent goes to wife.

but agree it’s a nightmare. Frankly I think the whole marriage thing needs to be rewritten.

i think that it should be seen as a financial contract and both parties draw up and sign an agreement before marriage. But of course, that is fraught with risk as people could say they were coerced into it. Or they don’t know if they’ll have kids etc so it’s hard to see how it would work. Or men with loads of money could persuade partners to skip marriage, then walk away and leave her with kids to look after.

but I think fewer people would get married when faced with the stark financial reality, and perhaps it would smoke out abusive behaviour before people tied the knot.

Omg yes. My exh forced me out the house (with our 3 year old) then refused to pay the mortgage. Took overpayments out. Told me he was going bankrupt while I was paying rent. I had to take him to court to force him to finish the divorce he started. Only managed to get money out which was the same cost as going to court but at the time the prospect of losing the house and owing money on it seemed real.

I'll never know what the truth was. He's well off now apparently the lying shit.

When we were married he'd refuse to pay bills. I had to borrow money to pay the gas. I was terrified every time it came in. My own earnings just disappeared and so did my savings.

There definitely needs to be some protections.

I don't think I'll ever quite recover. The financial and mental impact of what he did to me has had lasting detrimental effects on my health and wellbeing.

For the most part, don’t we just need the courts sorted out so that the legal infrastructure is adequate? The delays to get anything to court at the moment is having a huge impact on people’s financial. Even probate has been ridiculous resulting in losses for heirs of the bereaved (which I’m mentioning as an example because the vast majority are totally straight forward, not because they are as important).

If you could get a court order in a timely manner, the threats of non-payment to force unfair agreements wouldn’t hold nearly as much power.

Not much point in bringing in more protections if the current court delays remain.

I am in this situation. My ex and I bought 2 buy to let properties and a house to live in. I finished with him 4 years ago and have only just managed to sell the main house after lots of lawyer's threats. He ignores my lawyer. He trashed the house before he left, even wiping faeces on the bannister.

At the moment, he has stopped paying the one joint mortgage we have, even though he is renting it out. He gave me a key to the other flat (no mortgage) when his tenant moved out and I had to clean their filth. It seems he had been a slum landlord so they trashed it. I am now getting debt warnings from the building management company and the mortgage company. He says he will buy the flats but then doesn't appoint a solicitor. He says he will sell the flats but then doesn't agree with the solicitor. He is not prepared to lose a penny on the flats, despite having let his tenants trash them. At the moment, I've paid £1000 of debt for a flat he was renting out, and there is another £1500 outstanding on the flat he is still renting out. Both flats continue to accrue debt. He continues to ignore me / solicitors. My solicitor is now ghosting me because she is fed up with him.

I am told that court will cost more than the £30,000 equity I have. So I am very stuck. Friends are telling me to walk away, but even that requires him to do some paperwork. I know that he is trying to break me and he is succeeding. I am trying a new solicitor, but my mental health is shot. I burst into tears all the time. I am totally trapped. I am so worried about my credit rating and never being able to have a home now. I don't know how to get out of this mess.

Hmm. I remortgaged when separated from my ex, he complained to the bank but because I secured a cheaper deal they refused to progress his complaint. He wasn't worse off by my actions so he had no grounds. I traded a 50/50 pension split for his equity in the house so I didn't have to buy him out, and got a job that just about paid me enough for the bank to accept me as sole owner. It was stressful to get sorted, because I still depended on his timely completion of paperwork, but I managed it in the end.

During our financial settlement we had to submit bank statements and he saw my UC income (we have disabled children so the amount was high). He immediately stopped paying the mortgage and emailed me telling me to use the UC to pay it. Until that point he was paying it in full each month and I was covering everything else on my own. I hadn't asked for maintenance because I thought the mortgage payment more or less covered his financial obligation. As soon as he stopped paying the mortgage I applied for maintenance through CMS and was awarded a higher amount than what he was paying for the mortgage. The absolute fucker was more than happy to risk a roof over his disabled children's heads. I'm still furious about it but he has pulled plenty more bullshit over the years, I nearly forgot that one.

So sorry to hear these real life examples of men continuing to be controlling and punishing, even after a relationship / marriage has ended.

As if life wasn't stressful enough, managing on ones own, especially with children.

Will there ever come a day when men genuinely recognise how badly and damagingly so many of them behave.

Surely the answer is to force them to choose - pay your share of the mortgage or agree to sell. You can’t not do either of them.

You talk about this as if it’s reasonable exh’s involved in the process. I’ve seen many spiteful men. Including one dear friend’s asshole ex flat out refused to pay despite numerous court orders. Neither would he sign the papers to sell the house. It is a flat out lie that men HAVE to do anything and the legal system is easily weaponised by men who refuse to play by the books.

I think its worth remembering the OP to this thread.

Economic abuse is now recognised as a sign of domestic abuse.

It is coercive control.

And any hope of reasonable behaviour, or institutions not understanding how their "rules" can become a weapon, seems years off.