A letter written on behalf of around 126 domestic abuse survivors living in safe houses in the West Midlands has raised a wider question about Britain’s support system: once somebody has escaped abuse and found somewhere safe to live, where are they supposed to rebuild their life?
The letter was submitted to Contento Social Homes by its Board of Survivors, which represents survivors living across the organisation’s safe houses.
Their request was not for more refuge bedrooms.
They were asking for a safe place to come together.
A reliable, controlled and accessible space where survivors could attend recovery programmes without wondering whether the venue would change, whether they could physically get through the door, whether their children would be allowed inside, or whether somebody working in the building might know them or be connected to their past.
Earlier this year, the Board formally asked Contento Social Homes to work towards establishing a dedicated community centre for survivors.
It warned that continuing problems with externally hired venues were beginning to affect “confidence, engagement, and willingness to attend future events”, and that prolonged disruption risked survivors disengaging from important support programmes altogether.
At first glance, this might appear to be a local problem involving one organisation and the rooms it hires for its programmes.
But the experiences being reported by survivors raise a more difficult national question.
Britain collects considerable information about refuge beds, accommodation and contacts with domestic abuse services.
It is much harder to establish whether survivors have reliable, safe and accessible places in which to undertake the longer process of rebuilding their lives after escaping abuse.
The day some survivors could not get inside
One incident described by the Board illustrates how an apparently ordinary problem with a venue can have much greater consequences for somebody already dealing with the effects of domestic abuse.
Contento had arranged an end-of-year event at an accessible venue.
That building became unavailable following a fire, and an alternative venue had to be found.
When survivors arrived at the replacement building, however, the lift was not working.
According to the Board, survivors with additional physical disabilities were unable to enter and were forced to remain outside.
The letter says the experience left them feeling “excluded, embarrassed, and overlooked”.
The Board says this was not an isolated type of difficulty.
External venues can offer limited time slots that clash with school drop-off and collection times.
Some operate policies which do not allow children on the premises.
For survivors who have fled abusive homes with their children, that can create a stark choice: attend a programme designed to help them regain their independence, or remain with their children.
There are also concerns about confidentiality and safety.
The Board does not allege that a survivor has been identified or approached at one of the hired venues.
Its concern is about the risk.
Survivors told the Board there is always the possibility that somebody working at an external venue could know them or have connections with their past.
For somebody whose safety may depend on carefully controlling who knows where they live, where they receive support or even which part of a city they regularly visit, that possibility can be enough to deter attendance.
The letter says fear of being recognised has already discouraged some survivors from attending empowerment events.
Nowhere neutral to meet
There is another, less visible problem.
Survivors sometimes want to talk to other people who understand what they have experienced.
But safe houses cannot simply operate like ordinary residential buildings.
Restrictions on visitors exist for good reason. The location and security of people fleeing domestic abuse have to be protected.
The Board says some survivors would prefer to speak with survivors living in different safe houses, partly because they may not want to discuss personal experiences with somebody living in the same property.
Without a neutral and secure place to meet, those conversations become difficult.
The Board says the result can be isolation at precisely the point when peer support could help survivors begin rebuilding confidence and independence.
A much bigger population than the refuge system suggests
The issue becomes more significant when considered against the scale of domestic abuse nationally.
The Crime Survey for England and Wales estimated that approximately 3.8 million people aged 16 and over experienced domestic abuse in the year ending March 2025.
That included an estimated 2.2 million women and 1.5 million men.
The Office for National Statistics has not yet published an equivalent prevalence estimate for the year ending March 2026, although police forces recorded 834,256 offences categorised as domestic-abuse related during that period.
The ONS itself cautions that police figures are not a reliable measure of the true prevalence of domestic abuse because much abuse is never reported and recording practices can change.
Those figures also reveal something that is easily missed when domestic abuse provision is discussed mainly in terms of refuges.
Most people needing domestic abuse support will never live in one.
When the Domestic Abuse Commissioner conducted a major national mapping exercise involving more than 4,000 victims and survivors, 83% said they wanted some form of community-based support.
Only 28% said they wanted refuge accommodation.
Yet fewer than half were able to obtain the community-based support they wanted, while just 28% described accessing help as easy or straightforward.
The Commissioner’s research described domestic abuse provision as a “patchwork”, with what was available often depending on where somebody lived and who they were.
That research does not prove that survivors elsewhere in Britain face precisely the same venue problems now being raised in the West Midlands.
It does, however, establish that access to community-based recovery support is already a recognised national problem.
The thing Britain does not routinely count
There is a particular difficulty in determining how widespread the issue identified by Contento’s survivors might be.
Britain is considerably better at counting refuge beds than it is at counting the physical spaces where longer-term recovery programmes take place.
The Office for National Statistics reported 4,604 domestic abuse refuge bed spaces in England in 2025.
Nationally, that remained below the minimum benchmark recommended by the Council of Europe.
But the regional figures contain an interesting detail.
The West Midlands was one of only two English regions, alongside London, that had exceeded the recommended refuge-space benchmark in recent years.
That makes the concerns raised by the Board of Survivors particularly revealing.
The survivors are not describing a shortage that would necessarily appear in refuge-bed statistics.
They already have safe accommodation.
They are describing what happens around that accommodation: recovery programmes, peer support, confidence building, workshops, practical preparation for independent living and somewhere safe to meet.
National datasets record refuge capacity, helpline contacts, advocacy cases and other forms of domestic abuse provision.
There does not appear to be an equivalent national measure showing how many organisations have permanent, controlled, fully accessible spaces specifically available for survivor programmes and community-based recovery work.
That means there is currently no reliable national figure showing how widespread the precise problem described by the Board may be.
That does not prove the problem is widespread.
It means it is not routinely measured.
Housing is only one part of recovery
The distinction is important because escaping an abusive home and recovering from abuse are not the same thing.
Safe accommodation can remove somebody from immediate danger.
The work afterwards can be much longer.
Survivors may need help rebuilding confidence, managing finances, finding employment, dealing with trauma, supporting children, navigating legal processes, developing new social networks or preparing to live independently.
Contento runs programmes including its Freedom Training Programme alongside the weekly support provided to survivors in its safe houses.
The Board’s argument is that programmes intended to create stability are themselves being delivered through an arrangement that can be unpredictable.
A room has to be found.
It has to be available at the right time.
It has to be affordable.
It has to be accessible.
It has to permit children where necessary.
And survivors have to feel safe entering it.
When any part of that chain fails, the programme may technically still exist while becoming inaccessible to some of the people it is intended to help.
The law treats accommodation differently
There is also a significant distinction in the way domestic abuse services are commissioned in England.
Part 4 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 placed duties on local authorities relating to support for victims and their children in refuges and other forms of safe accommodation.
Councils must assess need, develop strategies and commission accommodation-based support.
Community-based support sits within a more complicated structure.
The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 introduced arrangements requiring police and crime commissioners, local authorities and Integrated Care Boards to work together in considering services for victims of domestic abuse, sexual abuse and serious violence.
But the explanatory notes accompanying the legislation make an important qualification: those collaboration requirements do not themselves create a new legal obligation to commission a particular service.
That leaves an obvious question.
A survivor can have a statutory framework concerned with the accommodation keeping them safe without necessarily having an equivalent guarantee covering every aspect of the support needed outside that accommodation.
The Birmingham survivors’ request sits in that space.
They have somewhere safe to live.
They are asking where the infrastructure for recovery is supposed to be.
Government already acknowledges a fragmented system
This is not entirely absent from national policy.
The government’s Violence Against Women and Girls strategy, published in December 2025, acknowledged that support could be fragmented and inconsistent and that where somebody lives can still affect what help is available.
It committed the government to improving coordination and access to tailored and holistic support.
Funding remains one of the central arguments surrounding how that ambition can be delivered.
Women’s Aid has estimated that specialist domestic abuse services in England require approximately £502 million a year, including £280 million for community-based services.
Its analysis estimates a funding shortfall of more than £300 million.
Those are estimates produced by Women’s Aid rather than a government assessment of required spending, but they demonstrate the scale of the funding challenge being described by organisations working in the sector.
Children are part of that picture too.
Under the Domestic Abuse Act, children who see, hear or experience the effects of domestic abuse are recognised as victims in their own right.
Research published by the Domestic Abuse Commissioner in 2025 found that 27% of services surveyed had turned children away because of funding pressures, while 51% had placed children on waiting lists because demand exceeded available support.
For parents trying to attend recovery programmes, therefore, whether a venue accepts children is not necessarily a minor administrative issue.
It can determine whether support is accessible at all.
Birmingham is not without domestic abuse services
It is important to be clear about what the survivors’ letter does not establish.
Birmingham does have domestic abuse services.
It has specialist organisations, accommodation providers, advocacy services and a Domestic Abuse Local Strategic Partnership Board.
Birmingham City Council’s Domestic Abuse Prevention Strategy includes commitments to survivor-led and trauma-informed services and identifies the need for longer-term, holistic support to aid recovery.
There are also specialist domestic abuse organisations operating throughout Birmingham and the wider West Midlands.
The issue raised by Contento’s Board of Survivors is narrower.
Can a service exist on paper while practical barriers still prevent people from using it properly?
A workshop exists, but the venue changes.
An empowerment programme exists, but the building does not admit children.
An event has been rearranged, but a disabled survivor cannot get upstairs.
Peer support is encouraged, but survivors living in separate safe houses have nowhere secure and neutral in which to meet.
Considered one at a time, each problem may look like a logistical inconvenience.
Considered together, survivors say they can influence whether somebody continues attending at all.
That is why the Board’s February letter carries more significance than an ordinary request for premises.
It represents concerns being raised on behalf of around 126 survivors living across Contento’s safe houses.
Their experience cannot automatically be generalised to every survivor in Britain.
But neither should it be dismissed as the complaint of a handful of individuals.
It is a substantial group of people using domestic abuse services in one part of the country identifying the same weakness in the way continuing support is being delivered.
Would a dedicated survivor centre solve the problem?
Not by itself.
A building is not a domestic abuse service.
A dedicated centre would still require appropriate safeguarding procedures, controlled access, confidentiality arrangements, disability access, insurance, trained staff and sustainable funding.
If children are allowed to attend, suitable safeguarding and facilities would be required.
If survivors travel from different safe houses, the security of the location and travel arrangements would have to be considered.
Survivors themselves would also need a meaningful role in deciding how the centre operates.
But this is precisely why the Board is asking for a dedicated space rather than another hired community room.
A specialist centre could be designed around the people using it.
Accessibility could be assessed and maintained rather than rediscovered with every booking.
Programmes could be scheduled around survivors rather than the availability of somebody else’s hall.
Access to the building could be controlled.
Parents could know in advance whether their children could attend.
Survivors from different safe houses could meet without breaching the security arrangements of their accommodation.
And programmes could take place in surroundings that become familiar rather than changing from one event to the next.
The question that reaches beyond the West Midlands
The evidence behind this story comes from survivors supported by one organisation in one region.
It should not be presented as proof that every domestic abuse survivor in Britain faces the same difficulties.
Different communities require different services, and national research shows particularly complex barriers affecting disabled survivors, male survivors, LGBT+ survivors, Black and minoritised survivors, migrants and families with children.
There is also no national dataset currently capable of telling us how many survivors are experiencing exactly what the Contento Board has described.
That absence of evidence is itself important.
If recovery programmes are regarded as an essential part of helping people rebuild their lives after domestic abuse, somebody needs to know not only whether those programmes exist, but whether survivors can realistically attend them.
The letter from the West Midlands therefore raises a question for commissioners and domestic abuse organisations beyond Contento:
Once we have counted the refuge bed, have we also counted what a survivor needs after reaching it?
The legal and commissioning arrangements discussed here relate primarily to England. Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland operate under their own devolved systems.
But the underlying question is one that can be asked across the UK.
What does safety look like after somebody has escaped?
A request for more than four walls
Contento Social Homes is now exploring how a dedicated survivor community space could be established and is seeking discussions with local authorities, funders, businesses, charitable organisations and property owners.
Support could take several forms.
It could be capital funding, a long-term subsidised lease, access to an appropriate unused property, corporate sponsorship, refurbishment work, accessibility improvements or a partnership with another organisation.
Any credible proposal would also have to consider how such a centre could remain financially sustainable, secure and accessible in the long term.
There may be a wider opportunity as well.
If other domestic abuse organisations are encountering similar difficulties, commissioners need to know.
It is difficult to design policy around a problem that is not routinely measured.
The February letter began as a request from Contento’s Board of Survivors to the organisation responsible for supporting them.
But behind it are the voices and experiences of around 126 survivors across its safe houses.
Their question is considerably larger than the building they are asking for.
Safe accommodation provides a door away from abuse.
What they are asking Britain to think about is what comes after it.
Can you help?
Contento Social Homes is seeking organisations, funders, local authorities and property partners interested in helping develop a dedicated, secure and accessible survivor community space in the West Midlands.
Organisations able to provide premises, funding, professional expertise or partnership support can contact Contento Social Homes through www.contentosocialhomes.com.
If you are experiencing domestic abuse
If you are in immediate danger, call 999.
The National Domestic Abuse Helpline, run by Refuge, is available free, 24 hours a day, on 0808 2000 247.
The Men’s Advice Line can be contacted on 0808 801 0327.
Local specialist domestic abuse services are also available throughout the West Midlands. You do not have to have reported domestic abuse to the police to seek support.
