Taking out a joint mortgage is one of the most common ways for people to get onto the property ladder. For many, combining earning power with a partner or friend increases borrowing capacity, enabling them to buy sooner or purchase a larger home.
For many of these people, joint financial arrangements can often work well, but for many others however, joint financial arrangements may not always be in the client’s best interests, potentially leading to coercive control, manipulation and economic abuse.
According to UK charity, Surviving Economic Abuse (SEA), 4.2 million women experienced economic abuse in the last year. This means they had their money and financial resources controlled by a current or former partner, who used financial products such as mortgages, bank accounts and insurance policies to isolate, control and harm their victims.
Understanding and recognising the signs of economic abuse is still a challenge for the financial services industry. According to findings from CIExpert’s recent Critical Thinking 2026 Report, awareness of economic abuse connected to joint financial arrangements was extremely low among advisers, sitting at just 3%.
With incidences of economic abuse increasing, greater emphasis is being placed on the importance of financial independence and the safeguarding of victims, with some financial services providers having introduced resources such as dedicated economic abuse teams and flee funds to help victim-survivors.
However, greater training and education industry wide is essential to ensure advisers can recognise economic abuse, safely respond to disclosures, and support customers effectively.
THE ROLE OF ADVISERS
As one of the few professionals with visibility over a couple’s financial arrangements, including borrowing decisions and protection needs, advisers are well positioned to spot early warning signs of financial coercion by asking appropriate questions and ensuring any financial recommendations genuinely reflect the interest of both clients.
Framing conversations in a way that identifies each customer’s awareness of joint finances is a good place to start, says Lauren Garrett, head of financial services at SEA. She says: “Rather than asking direct questions, gentle prompts can help encourage disclosures, such as ‘Do you feel in control of your own money or policy?’ or ‘Have you ever felt worried discussing finances with your partner?’.
Garrett says it’s vital that any discussions about economic abuse do not place survivors at risk of harm, so advisers should always check that it is safe before starting a conversation.
“Advisers should also stay alert to red flags, including customers appearing anxious, deferring decisions to a partner, or not having an understanding or knowledge of their finances, which could indicate control,” she says.
Economic abuse comes in many forms and includes restricting a person’s access to money, forcing someone into a joint financial arrangement, running up debt in another person’s name, preventing them from going to work, buying food or using transport, and using insurance and other financial products as a form of control.
It can also be difficult to spot, which is why the way in which protection arrangements are structured is becoming increasingly important.
Industry campaigns such as CIExpert’s Single Is Best initiative, has long championed the benefits of recommending two single critical illness policies over joint cover, and this approach also extends to other forms of protection such as life cover.
Not only does having two separate policies in place offer, in most cases, better value, it also provides each client with greater control, clearer ownership and more flexibility if their circumstances change in the future.
FURTHER MARKET DEVELOPMENTS
The Exeter‘s decision to remove the dual-consent requirement for cancelling life insurance policies in March last year is another sign that the industry is beginning to take steps towards removing enablers of economic abuse.
The friendly society introduced a joint life separation option allowing joint cover to be split into two single policies following a separation with only one partner’s consent.
Traditionally, life insurance contracts require both parties to consent to cancelling or altering a joint policy, so the change will help to prevent perpetrators from using life cover to maintain control by refusing to sign separation paperwork.
Economic abuse can be subtle and hard to spot, and while the industry is certainly taking steps to minimise the opportunities for perpetrators to use financial services products as a weapon, there is still a long way to go.
By asking the right questions, remaining alert to any warning signs and not defaulting to joint protection solutions, advisers can better support clients by considering their individual circumstances and any future vulnerabilities, while still delivering suitable outcomes.
