The government has announced a new bill which it claims will help tackle domestic abuse by giving social housing landlords greater powers to evict abusers. On the surface, the policy appears to offer greater security to survivors of abuse. In practice, however, it risks shifting responsibility away from the state and onto victims themselves.
Rather than addressing the systemic failures that leave survivors with little choice but to flee for safety, the bill appears to place greater emphasis on victims reporting their abuser, navigating the inept criminal justice system (CJS), and pursuing the perpetrator’s eviction.
For these reasons, the bill is unlikely to represent the unequivocal “victory for victims” that its supporters claim. While its stated objective of allowing survivors to remain safely in their homes is commendable, the policy underestimates the realities of domestic abuse and the risks involved in confronting its perpetrators.
Refuge’s Head of Policy and Public Affairs, Ellie Butt, spoke to the Canary about the domestic abuse organisation’s response to this policy announcement:
Given the extremely low proportion of perpetrators who are arrested, charged and convicted, linking housing rights to the criminal justice system risks creating a significant barrier for survivors.
Domestic abuse bill – will it be effective?
On the surface, this bill appears to prevent victims of abuse from losing their homes when they flee to protect themselves and their children from further harm. However, a closer examination suggests that its primary purpose may be to reduce the burden on the state arising from the increasing prevalence of domestic abuse and violence against women and girls (VAWG).
The government states that, last year alone, 15k families required rehousing after escaping domestic abuse. Women and children experience domestic abuse disproportionately and often become more vulnerable when they leave the family home. Turning to charities like Refuge and Women’s Aid are often the only real port of call that seeks to protect victims of abuse from homelessness, providing them with the tools and resources they need to live safely.
To accommodate some of these families, local authorities frequently rely on temporary housing such as hotels in absence of available housing. This approach places a substantial financial burden on the state while forcing many survivors to endure unsuitable and often poor-quality living conditions.
The government is right to recognise that this situation is unfair to those affected. Nevertheless, this bill could easily be criticised as pretty short-sighted, as it does little to address the potentially serious – and, in some cases, violent – consequences that may arise from its rollout across the country.
Going further, the CJS’ track record where so few victims find justice suggests that many wouldn’t even be able to have this protection, thus emboldening their abuser while the victim is left feeling even more powerless.
Victims are already afraid to report abuse
Many victims already lack confidence that the police or courts can adequately protect them from abuse. After all, the criminal justice system has long failed to respond effectively to the high prevalence of violence against women and girls (VAWG) and domestic abuse cases.
Conviction rates remain persistently low and more and more women feel it is pointless to report abuse to the police. This problem is particularly acute in domestic abuse cases, where only 1% of victims receive protective measures such as Domestic Violence Prevention Orders (DVPO).
Refuge’s Ellie Butt appreciated the efforts made to give more housing rights to victims of abuse, telling us:
There is a huge intersection between domestic abuse and homelessness. At Refuge, every day we hear from survivors who are trapped in accommodation with their abusers, with nowhere else to go. For many, the choice is stark: stay with an abuser or face homelessness.
At Refuge, we are clear that no one should have to lose their home because of domestic abuse. It is unacceptable that anyone should be forced to choose between their safety and a roof over their head. All survivors deserve to be supported to stay safely in their homes, or access alternative safe accommodation.
Refuge welcomes the increased powers in the Social Housing Bill that enable landlords to take legal action to remove a perpetrator from a tenancy agreement and convert it into a survivor’s sole name, allowing survivors to stay in their homes when it is safe for them to do so.
However, she shares similar concerns about how it will work for victims in practice, stating:
Although the measures in the Social Housing Bill represent an important step forward, Refuge is concerned that the protections will be limited by the narrow range of offences included in the mandatory grounds for eviction. Given the extremely low proportion of perpetrators who are arrested, charged, and convicted, linking housing rights to the criminal justice system risks creating a significant barrier for survivors.
On top of this, the Bill in its current form does not contain any clear obligations for landlords to use these stronger powers. The Government must provide greater detail around how landlords will be expected and encouraged to use these measures in practice. Similarly, we need urgent clarity on where perpetrators will go once they have been removed, and how survivors will be kept safe. There is a significant risk that perpetrators who are displaced may seek to retaliate against the survivor, who they might hold responsible. It is paramount that there are safeguards in place to prevent this.
Removing the perpetrator is only the first step, not a silver bullet. Survivors will continue to need specialist support, including safety planning and practical assistance, to rebuild their lives free from abuse. It is essential that clear processes are in place to ensure survivors can access the wider support network needed through this time, including local specialist domestic abuse services.
As the Bill progresses through Parliament, Refuge will fight for it to be truly effective in providing survivors with safe, secure housing, ensuring that protections on paper translate into meaningful change.
The government overlooks and fails to mitigate foreseeable risks
Successive governments have repeatedly failed to anticipate and mitigate the consequences of their policy decisions. This social housing bill appears to be no exception. This is clear by the significant burden placed on vulnerable victims and their children by effectively requiring them to confront their abuser, report them to the authorities, and pursue their eviction from the family home.
Such an expectation overlooks the complex realities of domestic abuse, including fear, coercive control, financial dependence, and the risk of retaliation. For disabled victims of abuse, this becomes even more dangerous. As a result, the policy may inadvertently expose women and children to a greater risk of intimidation, coercion, and further violence.
Furthermore, if approximately 15k families required rehousing last year, the widespread implementation of this policy could force authorities to make a similar number of perpetrators homeless each year. While holding abusers accountable remains essential, the bill fails to adequately consider the potentially harmful consequences of these evictions.
For instance, many perpetrators will see eviction not as a consequence of their own abusive actions, but as something done to them by the very people they have abused. In turn, this will likely fuel resentment and encourage further intimidation, harassment, stalking, or violence.
Without robust safeguards and effective enforcement mechanisms, there is a real danger that the policy could shift the burden of risk onto survivors rather than reducing it.
Without improving confidence in the CJS, victims remain in harm’s way.
Ultimately, the bill raises more questions than it answers.
- What will happen to the potentially 15k abusers who could be evicted every year?
- More importantly, how does the government intend to manage the consequences of potentially thousands of displaced abusers who may feel aggrieved, entitled, or motivated by a desire for retaliation?
Given the criminal justice system’s persistent failure to adequately deter and punish abusive behaviour, these are not hypothetical concerns. Without a credible plan to address these risks, the government risks creating a dangerous tinderbox by displacing thousands of abusive perpetrators while failing to prevent them from taking their anger and resentment out on the very victims the bill claims to protect.
A policy designed to improve safety should not simply shift the burden of risk elsewhere; it should demonstrate a clear understanding of the consequences that its implementation may bring.
Featured image via Getty/Alex Wong
From Canary via This RSS Feed.