Support for adult victims of trafficking and exploitation - guidance: consultation analysis

7. Question 5 – Accommodation Support

Question: Does the guidance set out clearly the accommodation support for adult victims of human trafficking?

Positive Comments

Some respondents stated that the guidance provides clear detail on accommodation pathways and arrangements. It was noted that the information is presented in a structured way, explaining the accommodation pathways available to adult victims both before and after a Reasonable Grounds (RG) decision, including eligibility for SAVTS accommodation and the associated assessment process. The guidance was considered to clearly describe how SAVTS accommodation interacts with asylum accommodation and local authority provision, therefore assisting practitioners to understand responsibilities and transitions between systems.

The step‑by‑step breakdown provided throughout this section was viewed as supporting clarity and operational understanding, making it easier for practitioners to navigate what can be a complex area of victim support.

Need for further clarity

Some responses noted that the guidance requires greater clarity around the interaction between SAVTS accommodation and asylum/Section 10 support, particularly in terms of when it takes precedence or operates alongside other provisions. Clarity is needed on how disagreements between providers or gaps in provision are to be managed.

Some respondents stated that there is a lack of clarity on the relationship between SAVTS support/guidance and other systems such as the prison system. Risks and limitations to providing accommodation for those currently in the criminal justice system as a victim/offender should also be set out. Conditions concerning access to accommodation on bail or while serving a community sentence are set out only vague "risk considerations" without explaining what those are or how they are assessed. There is no discussion of when SAVTS accommodation should be considered as an alternative to remand or continued detention for a survivor within the criminal justice system. The guidance could address situations where a person has been recognised as a victim of trafficking while becoming asylum appeal rights exhausted or they wish to re-enter support for any other reason.

It was noted that while the guidance notes Local Authority duties in respect to accommodation, in practice people may end up homeless and are therefore at a higher risk of exploitation. A list of relevant agencies who could provide additional support when safety concerns cannot be managed should be included. The guidance would benefit from greater clarity around the interaction between SAVTS accommodation provision and local authority housing duties, homelessness services and community-based supports. Some survivors noted that only specialist trafficking support agencies provided information on accommodation, suggesting that wider clarity around accommodation rights would be helpful.

Further clarity was requested in relation to people with no recourse to public funds, where responsibilities between different agencies are not clearly defined. The Guidance sets out that support may be available in certain circumstances but does not sufficiently explain how disagreements or gaps in provision should be managed. Respondents suggested that it may be useful to consider and set out who the other relevant agencies are in terms of No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF), especially in terms of violence against women. It was suggested that a link to the COSLA guidance on migrant rights and entitlements could be of value.

Need for practical information

Suggestions were made about including practical case examples such as a destitute victim with NRPF or a victim engaged in the criminal justice system to illustrate how assessments are applied in practice.

Suggested additions to the Guidance

The guidance should include information about the requirement for local authorities to provide accommodation to those individuals with complex needs or with dependants, particularly children. Concern was expressed that stating ‘where the adult is eligible for local authority services’ leaves the potential for disagreements in eligibility. Local authorities may not provide accommodation to those assessed by SAVTS providers as too high risk or with complex needs that SAVTS cannot safely support. Local authorities may consider that victims in this position are eligible for accommodation under SAVTS despite providers being unable to safely meet their needs.

It was suggested that the guidance should explicitly reference the role of local authorities in the provision of temporary accommodation to those with NRPF while undertaking a Human Rights Assessment. The guidance suggests that those subject to NRPF cannot access local authority housing support, but does not clearly explain what protection SAVTS will provide before an RG decision is reached.

Further details on eligibility for accommodation for those with child and adult dependents should be provided. Eligibility should also consider risk to staff and other service users, particularly where accommodation has shared spaces or there are lone working practices. Conflict in accommodation provision for victim/perpetrators should be considered.

Some respondents requested the inclusion of more information about women-only accommodation, additional support measures for women with children, accessible accommodation as well as accommodation specifically designed for survivors of sexual exploitation and abuse. Concerns were also raised about the shortage of specialist, trauma-informed exiting services and the need for minimum standards and pathways for women who have been exploited into selling sex. Geographical gaps in service provision, particularly in relation to Highlands and Islands/rural locations were identified.

Other concerns or comments

Concerns were voiced that housing decisions for victims of trafficking should not be left to discretionary judgement by service providers. The Guidance offers no standardised risk or needs assessment, nor does it set out the specific provisions required to ensure safe, appropriate and timely accommodation. There is also no requirement for assessments to consider proximity to previous exploitation.

It was noted that there is a preference for directing survivors towards asylum accommodation where an entitlement to it exists. It was suggested that directing a survivor towards such accommodation on the basis of entitlement alone, without a documented assessment of the specific re-exploitation risk associated, places victims at risk.

It was suggested that the guidance needs to recognise the move from trafficking accommodation to asylum accommodation as a crisis point rather than as a routine administrative step. The guidance needs to make clear what should happen when asylum accommodation cannot meet trafficking-specific needs, and practitioners need explicit guidance on how to respond when a victim is unwilling or unable to make that transition safely.