Report condemns “systemic gatekeeping” of domestic abuse support by local councils

A new report published by the Public Law Interest Centre has laid bare the “systemic gatekeeping” of access to support for domestic abuse survivors by local councils across London.

The report, “Abused twice: The ‘gatekeeping’ of housing support for domestic abuse survivors in every London borough”, begins by repeating a statement made by then Minister for Rough Sleeping and Housing Eddie Hughes MP following the Domesic Abuse Act 2021 receiving Royal Assent:

“The new duty on councils through the landmark Domestic Abuse Act will ensure that no one is turned away from life-saving support.”

This is a promise which has not materialised, write Liz Davies KC of Garden Court Chambers in her foreword, who noted that the report “paints a grim picture of councils not understanding domestic abuse, and not complying with their legal obligations”.

“Housing campaigners and lawyers have been warning about “gatekeeping” – the practice of preventing people from making applications for homelessness assistance – for many years.

For those leaving domestic abuse, the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 was meant to change all that.”

Davies made it quite clear that, in her view, the Act has not had its intended effect:

“But one year on we continue to read of councils failing to recognise that someone might be homeless or failing to deal with an application efficiently. These accounts show that some councils still hold an old-fashioned view of domestic violence as needing to involve physical assault, and have failed to acknowledge the modern broader understanding – and legal definition – of domestic abuse. Some councils are still requiring corroborative evidence when no such evidence might exist.”

The report contains witness statements provided by 32 survivors of domestic abuse and frontline advocates – one from each London borough. The key findings were as follows:

• The “gatekeeping” of housing support for domestic abuse survivors is a systemic issue across London local authorities.
• “Gatekeeping” by councils takes a variety of forms, including:
  • Long (and sometimes unlawful) delays in making decisions around housing for survivors.
  • Unsuitable offers of temporary and long-term accommodation.
  • The failure to provide emergency accommodation to survivors and their children.
  • The imposition of unlawfully high evidence thresholds before support is provided.
  • Failure to apply the statutory definition of domestic abuse.
  • The application of value judgements by housing officers.
  • Survivors being wrongly instructed to stay in or leave their borough.
  • The refusal of support until there is a threat of legal action.
• Council “gatekeeping” is having a serious impact on survivors. Examples of this impact include:
  • Survivors being forced to remain in properties where they are at risk or having no option but to return to the perpetrator of domestic abuse.
  • Survivors becoming street homeless or being forced to living in unsuitable or unaffordable accommodation.
  • Survivors being moved away from support networks.
  • Survivors being retraumatised leading to a deterioration in their mental health.
  • Survivors being forced into increased dependency on their perpetrators.
• “Gatekeeping” across London local authorities has worsened over the last decade as a consequence of austerity and a chronic shortage of social housing.
• The introduction of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 has not solved and will not solve the problem of systemic “gatekeeping”.
• For survivors, the “gatekeeping” of support in domestic abuse cases can be the difference between life and death, safety and danger, housing and street homelessness.
• There is therefore an urgent need for national and local government to review the way in which housing is provided to this group.

Davies continued her damning verdict:

“The effects of overcrowded, insanitary, and sometimes mixed-gender emergency accommodation are much worse for those fleeing domestic abuse.

The system of one-offer-only of longer-term accommodation can force a domestic abuse survivor to choose between safe housing and support.

Despite legal obligations requiring local housing authorities not to apply local connection tests in cases of domestic abuse, survivors all too often end up being passed from pillar to post between councils.

Domestic abuse survivors with No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF) are in the most vulnerable position.

Complex rules governing eligibility mean that those with NRPF cannot access homelessness assistance. They struggle to find refuge space or may end up sleeping rough. Their very lack of options provides an additional— horrific—opportunity for a perpetrator to exploit.

When women obtain legal advice, councils respond and acknowledge unlawful actions. But legal aid housing advice is increasingly hard to obtain. In any event, it should not take a lawyer’s letter to make public authorities comply with the law.”

She concluded:

“The worry is that a long-standing bureaucratic response to domestic abuse allegations – a culture of disbelief – remains, despite the Domestic Abuse Act.”

To access the full report, click here.

Join nearly 1,000 other family lawyers – sign up to our newsletter