Domestic abuse and housing uncertainty — a Clear Ground illustration

When someone does not know where they will go next, securing somewhere to stay may be key to keeping them engaged with support.

This fictional illustration shows what an initial Clear Ground consultancy note could help an organisation clarify—and what an optional fixed-fee supporting letter could add.

The purpose is not to determine entitlement or take over the case. It is to organise the information, identify gaps and frame constructive questions.

The fictional enquiry

A person who was homeless before entering prison is approaching the end of their Community Accommodation Service – Tier 2 (CAS-2). They moved there following release. CAS-2 provides temporary accommodation and support for eligible people in the criminal justice system who lack a suitable address. [1]

They experienced domestic abuse while already without accommodation.

For this illustration, the abuse was not the cause of their homelessness.

A DASH domestic-abuse risk assessment records a score of 7. The assessment has been queried, and their support worker has encountered pushback when seeking refuge accommodation.

The housing officer proposes accepting a relief duty and arranging temporary accommodation. A senior officer has instructed that this should wait until the applicant leaves CAS-2.

Their support worker believes knowing they have somewhere to go is key to maintaining engagement. Without accommodation secured, there is concern that contact will be lost or they will return to the perpetrator.

What could an initial free note identify?

From this limited outline, the note could help prioritise the following questions.

What has been deferred—and what can continue?

What is the confirmed CAS-2 end date, and how has the council assessed the applicant’s current housing position?

Does the instruction concern when a particular duty begins, or when accommodation is provided? Or have assessment, liaison and practical planning also been postponed?

Where the proposed approach has changed following senior consideration, what is the revised plan? Who owns it, and what can the frontline officer and partner agencies consistently explain?

The aim is to understand the reasoning and support coordinated working—not assume that either officer’s position is correct.

How has domestic abuse been considered?

There is a distinction between being homeless because of domestic abuse and experiencing abuse while already homeless for another reason.

Where homelessness results from domestic abuse, priority need is automatic, without a separate vulnerability test. [2]

Where abuse has not caused the homelessness, that automatic category is not established simply because the person is both homeless and experiencing abuse.

That does not make the abuse less serious or mean that the person is not vulnerable. Other priority-need categories remain relevant. When assessing vulnerability, the combined effects of abuse, custody and other circumstances need consideration—including whether the person would be significantly more vulnerable than an ordinary person if homeless. [3]

The fictional example assumes that abuse did not cause the applicant’s homelessness. In a real case, that distinction requires examination rather than assumption.

The words “as a result of” can be difficult to apply. In their 2025 Legal Action commentary, Liz Davies KC and Marina Sergides question how to assess the causal link where other accommodation has intervened. They suggest considering whether abuse remains the operative cause, rather than only the immediate cause, of homelessness. This is commentary—not a judgment determining this scenario. [4]

What does the DASH assessment show?

When was it completed? What has been queried? Does it reflect the applicant’s current circumstances and their own assessment of danger?

DASH supports professional judgment. Falling below the numerical referral threshold for a Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC) does not mean support is unnecessary. [5]

The refuge response also needs clarification. Was the difficulty availability, suitability, support needs or admission criteria? What alternatives are being explored?

Has interim accommodation been considered?

Has the council considered whether there is reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible and in priority need?

This threshold does not require every inquiry to be completed before interim accommodation is provided. [6]

Is accommodation part of the engagement plan?

With appropriate consent, could housing, CAS-2, probation and relevant support services agree practical steps, responsibilities and a contingency before departure?

The reported barrier is not simply a lack of contact. Having somewhere to go may be what enables the applicant to remain involved.

What could a fixed-fee supporting letter add?

The initial free note identifies questions from a brief outline. A separately agreed paid letter would involve analysis of a limited set of relevant records.

It could:

• Establish the chronology and confirmed accommodation end date.
• Separate recorded evidence from assumptions or unresolved accounts.
• Identify gaps or inconsistencies.
• Prepare prioritised questions about duties, accommodation planning and responsibilities.

The organisation could use the letter in its communication with the council. The additional value is analysis of agreed documents—not simply more words.

The audience, documents, scope, fixed fee and timescale would be agreed before work began. The letter would not guarantee accommodation or provide representation.

How the redesigned service would now apply to this original example

The original article described an initial free note and an optional fixed-fee letter. The redesigned service keeps the underlying purpose—organising a defined homelessness question and producing a useful written output—but separates the free conversation from paid analysis.

Commissioning route

1. Send a brief anonymised professional outline and one main question.
2. Use the free 15-minute call to discuss suitability and the smallest useful output.
3. Agree the scope, information set, recipient where relevant, fee, timing, exclusions and practical information route before paid work.
4. Share information securely only after the arrangements are agreed.
5. Receive the agreed triage note, supporting letter or both.

The redesigned service therefore does not turn the original example into a larger case review. It provides a clearer choice between a free suitability conversation, a paid one-question triage note, a focused supporting letter or both.

A question for further exploration

Could a third statutory track, alongside prevention and relief, offer a more practical response for people experiencing domestic abuse who have no safe accommodation—whether abuse caused their homelessness or they were already homeless when it occurred?

That is an idea to explore, not a description of current law or a service Clear Ground can deliver. It should not distract from the immediate need for a workable plan under the existing framework.

Clear Ground’s role and next steps

Clear Ground supports professional organisations and support workers dealing with homelessness in England. It identifies gaps and raises questions; it does not determine entitlement, assess lawfulness, or advise on legal challenges.

Clear Ground does not provide legal advice, representation, advocacy, statutory reviews, emergency accommodation or guaranteed outcomes.

Specialist housing legal advice and, where appropriate, council complaints or Ombudsman processes are separate routes. Complaints do not replace applicable review or appeal rights or urgent action. The applicant may need support to access those processes.

To discuss suitability, provide a brief, anonymised outline and start with a free 15-minute scoping call. Please do not share identifying or confidential case details in comments or an initial enquiry.

Any paid service is subject to agreed scope, suitability, readiness and capacity. An initial enquiry does not confirm acceptance.

Sources

1. Nacro — Community Accommodation Service (CAS-2)
2. Housing Act 1996, section 189 — Priority need
3. Homelessness Code of Guidance, Chapter 8 — Priority need
4. Liz Davies KC and Marina Sergides, Legal Action, 2025 — Domestic Abuse Act 2021 for housing lawyers
5. SafeLives — DASH resources
6. Homelessness Code of Guidance, Chapter 15 — Accommodation duties and powers