Blog: The Failure to Protect and Support Survivors of Trafficking
This month’s blog focuses on systemic failures to protect and support survivors of trafficking and exploitation, who often arrive in the UK having been subjected to profound harm and control, by providing them with inadequate accommodation.
Background
Prior to their arrival in the UK, many survivors of trafficking and exploitation will have been coerced, deceived, or forced into situations such as labour or sexual exploitation, domestic servitude, or criminal activities including drug transportation. Many have also endured serious physical, psychological and sexual violence and have long-lasting trauma.
It is precisely because of these risks, and the fear of further harm in their countries of origin or from trafficking networks, that many seek protection in the UK. Thousands of people are referred each year into the UK’s identification system for trafficking (known as the National Referral Mechanism, the “NRM”) also having ongoing or unresolved immigration claims and no other way to support themselves, meaning they rely on the Home Office for accommodation and financial support.[1]
For survivors of trafficking, accommodation is far more than just a place to stay – it is central to both their recovery from their traumatic experiences and their protection from further exploitation. Safe, stable and adequate accommodation can provide a sense of security after often prolonged periods of instability and fear. It also forms the foundation that enables survivors to access healthcare, legal advice, and specialist support.
Depending on their experiences, a survivor may have specific accommodation needs, such as accommodation that is single single-sex; sole-occupancy; away from the area in which they were exploited; and/or close to their support networks and medical treatment.
Unfortunately, many survivors remain in inadequate and unsafe Home Office accommodation that exacerbates their trauma, increases the risk of re-exploitation, and undermines recovery altogether – a result of them falling through the cracks of two legal frameworks that are meant to protect them.
The Two Frameworks Designed to Protect Survivors
There are two overlapping legal frameworks that should ensure that survivors are provided with accommodation that meets their needs. Under both of these systems, the Secretary of State for the Home Department (“SSHD”) is required to identify and assess an individual’s needs to ensure that they are met by any accommodation provided.
1. The asylum support regime under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (“IAA 1999”)
Under the asylum support regime, the SSHD has a duty to provide accommodation and financial support to asylum seekers who are destitute or likely to become destitute.[2]
Broadly, the accommodation provided must be adequate, meaning it should meet an individual’s needs and provide a dignified standard of living. This applies to survivors of trafficking – i.e. any asylum support accommodation must meet their particular needs.
There are different forms of asylum accommodation, including single and shared rooms in hotels, dormitory style accommodation in ex-military sites and former student halls, and shared flats and houses in the community. The allocation of accommodation is dealt with by the Asylum Support teams in the Home Office and is delivered by private contractors.
2. The modern slavery support system delivered through the Modern Slavery Victim Care Contract (“MSVCC”)
Survivors in the UK are also separately entitled to specialist support under the MSVCC – a government-funded program providing financial support, access to support and, in certain circumstances, accommodation.
This framework is derived from the UK’s obligations under the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (“ECAT”) and was given effect in domestic law through the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and statutory guidance issued under section 49 of that Act (Modern Slavery Act Statutory Guidance (“MSASG”)).[3]
Generally, individuals are entitled to a full package of support – including accommodation – once the Home Office has decided there are “reasonable grounds” to believe that they are a victim of trafficking (and are waiting for a “conclusive grounds” decision).
Under the MSASG, the SSHD must provide a survivor with “safe and appropriate accommodation” where there is a risk to their safety, of re-exploitation and/or where they cannot otherwise access adequate accommodation. This accommodation is sometimes provided in the form of a “safehouse”, i.e. secure residential accommodation often with onsite specialist staff.
The allocation of MSVCC accommodation (and other support) is dealt with by a specialist Home Office unit - the Single Competent Authority (the “SCA”).
Where It Goes Wrong: The Gaps Between the Two Systems
In spite of these two frameworks – and the duties they impose on the SSHD – many survivors are left in inadequate asylum accommodation that has a significant impact on their mental health.
For example, survivors of criminal sexual exploitation are placed in mixed-sex accommodation and/or forced to share bedrooms, leaving them feeling unsafe and hypervigilant. Others are accommodated in ex-military sites or in densely-populated hotels, which are triggering and destabilising environments. Many survivors are also frequently accommodated across the asylum accommodation estate, away from the support networks that keep them safe and the vital medical treatment they need.
In our experience, this situation is often a result of several systemic failings in the Home Office systems.
The two systems work in silos:
First, in spite of the Home Office overseeing both the asylum support and MSVCC systems, there is often a stark lack of communication and information sharing between the relevant teams.
For example, we often see the Asylum Support team failing to consider relevant information, held by the SCA, about an individual’s trafficking experiences when they first enter the system. This can include detailed medical evidence about a survivor’s significant mental health concerns, impacting upon their accommodation needs. As a result, individuals are allocated asylum accommodation without any assessment of how it might impact their recovery or expose them to further exploitation.
The Asylum Support team also frequently fails to reassess an individual’s accommodation needs when more information is provided about their experiences, or when the SCA finally determines that they were, in fact, a victim of trafficking.
An assumption that asylum accommodation will always be adequate:
Secondly, there appears to be an assumption, both in the Asylum Support teams and the SCA, that asylum accommodation will always be adequate for survivors.[4]
We see this most starkly when the SCA is considering whether to provide MSVCC accommodation. Where a survivor is already in asylum accommodation, the SCA will simply decide that they already have adequate accommodation available to them, negating the need for MSVCC intervention. This appears to be treated as a box-ticking exercise, without communication with the Asylum Support team, and without properly considering whether the asylum support accommodation really does, or even can, meet their needs.
There are also concerns regarding the lack of oversight of asylum accommodation and the adequacy of the asylum estate to meet the needs of survivors. While the Care Quality Commission now inspects safehouses and outreach support provided through the MSVCC, this does not include asylum support accommodation, leaving a significant gap in the monitoring and oversight.
Shifting the burden to individuals and a reliance on legal representation:
Thirdly, these systems failures mean that the burden is frequently placed on individuals to raise concerns about their accommodation through the Home Office’s contractors. In our experience, this process is often ineffective, and survivors are only relocated when solicitors intervene. This is a significant issue – particularly in a system in which there are so few legal aid lawyers that many people cannot access legal representation.
Conclusion
In our experience working with survivors of trafficking, we regularly see how inadequate accommodation can exacerbate trauma and prevent recovery. Survivors report feeling unsafe, unable to access medical or psychological support, and in fear of being found by traffickers.
It is widely recognised that survivors’ ability to recover from their experience of trafficking relies on access to safe and appropriate accommodation, and that remaining in inadequate accommodation can both worsen their mental health and impede their recovery.
The current system and its failings are particularly concerning in light of concerns from numerous frontline organisations as to whether asylum support accommodation – as it currently is – can ever be adequate. The British Red Cross has described serious safeguarding issues in asylum accommodation as “systemic”, and that asylum accommodation is often inappropriate and unsafe.[5] The UNHCR and British Red Cross have also raised concerns that asylum accommodation is not trauma-informed and may exacerbate psychological distress.[6] Hibiscus concluded that asylum accommodation cannot be considered safe for survivors, due to the lack of control over who can enter the accommodation, and that foreign nationals are “often treated as immigration cases first and as recognised victims with specific needs second.”[7]
It is time to address these systemic failures and ensure that survivors of trafficking are provided with the accommodation they need to recover and rebuild their lives free from fear.
This blog post was prepared with contributions from members of our legal team including: Sophie Broke, Megan Smith and Emily Soothill. It is for general information and is not intended to be used as legal advice.
[1] Helen Bamber Foundation, Road to Nowhere: The impact of insecure immigration status of survivors of trafficking, July 2025: https://www.helenbamber.org/resources/reportsbriefings/thousands-confirmed-trafficking-victims-denied-permission-stay-uk-and
[2] Although this is subject to the Government’s proposed changes to legislation which will remove the statutory duty to provide asylum support pursuant to section 95 Immigration and Asylum Act 1999: it will instead revert to being a discretionary power.
[3] Modern Slavery Act 2015, s.49: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/30/section/49
Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, Art. 12: https://rm.coe.int/168008371d
[4] As found by Hibiscus, Closed Doors, 2020: https://hibiscusinitiatives.org.uk/resource/closed-doors-report
[5] British Red Cross, Far from A Home, April 2021: https://www.redcross.org.uk/about-us/what-we-do/we-speak-up-for-change/far-from-a-home-why-asylum-accommodation-needs-reform
[6] Hibiscus, Closed Doors, 2020: https://hibiscusinitiatives.org.uk/resource/closed-doors-report
[7] UNHCR and the British Red Cross, At Risk: Exploitation and the UK asylum system, 2022: https://www.unhcr.org/uk/sites/uk/files/legacy-pdf/62ea90d2bc.pdf