How the UK became dependent on asylum hotels

Chancellor Rachel Reeves’s pledge to “end the costly use of asylum hotels in this parliament” is a rare thing in British politics: a policy supported by all major political parties and a range of refugee charities.

Reeves says ending the use of asylum hotels will  £1 billion a year. But for a government rapidly losing support, ending “hotel Britain” is also central to their popular appeal to regain control over the asylum system.

At a time of financial instability and declining living standards, the use of hotels to house asylum seekers has increased substantially. Hotels are associated with escape, luxury or business. This explains why the use of hotels has become such a  and fuelled resentment and tensions in some communities.

How did we get here?

Under the UN refugee convention, Britain has a legal obligation to house people while they are waiting for a decision on their claim to refugee status. Responsibility for housing asylum seekers , which has contracts with three private companies to offer accommodation. Hotels have historically been a small part of this housing, only used for short-term emergency cover when housing in the private rental sector is unavailable.

Hotel use . Private contractors responsible for housing asylum seekers were unable to find enough space in more routine “dispersal accommodation”.

Dispersal accommodation involves housing asylum seekers in shared properties across the country. These are usually shared houses or flats that private providers procure from the private rental sector, or from subcontracted housing associations. Local authority properties are not used. Asylum seekers have .

Once someone receives a decision on their asylum application (granted or refused refugee status), the Home Office stops providing them with housing and support. But during the pandemic, the  stopped this practice, to avoid making people homeless during lockdown. But this meant more people were staying longer in asylum housing. Hotels provided emergency housing during this period.

Following the pandemic, the number of asylum applications to the UK increased, . Decision making on asylum claims had , leaving people in the asylum process and in accommodation for longer periods of time. This increased pressure on housing and made it difficult for contractors to move people out of hotels.

At the height of hotel use, in June 2023,  were housed in more than 400 hotels across the UK, costing the Home Office . By March 2025, this had fallen to  in 218 hotels.

The use of hotels on this scale indicates that the system for housing asylum seekers in Britain is failing. While hotels can provide adaptable emergency accommodation, they are not sustainable housing solutions, nor do they offer the security of a home.

The costs of ‘hotel Britain’

In 2024, hotel accommodation for asylum seekers . Dispersal accommodation, on the other hand, cost on average £20 per night. The total asylum accommodation system , £3.1 billion of which went on hotels.

While costly to taxpayers, this was .

In May 2025, the three providers contracted by the government to deliver housing were reported to have made  from their accommodation contracts. The Britannia Hotels chain alone reportedly made  since first accommodating asylum seekers in 2014.

The costs have been more than financial. Asylum seekers have repeatedly raised the negative  associated with , a  and the limited access to support services.

Reports of hotels , collapsing ceilings and rude and abusive staff, reflect a model of accommodation that is ill-suited to supporting the needs of vulnerable residents. It is a far cry from the “luxury” conditions often described in media coverage.

Hotels have also become focal points for community tensions. Local residents were rarely informed of the use of a hotel in advance, and hotels were often closed to other guests at short notice, with .

These cases created a damaging sense of community powerlessness. Following a decade of austerity, the use of a town’s hotel to indefinitely accommodate asylum seekers was often described as another resource . Far-right groups were quick to exploit these tensions, circulating details of hotels accommodating asylum seekers and .

Communities not camps

To end the use of hotels, government proposals have focused on expanding the use of large-scale . This suggests that lessons from the last government have been ignored in the rush to end hotel accommodation.

Mass accommodation sites, such as  in Essex, are not able to provide sustainable and dignified accommodation. Using former military sites has been found to be  and can further .

Sustainable accommodation that meets the needs of asylum seekers and the public requires long-term strategy to replace short-term profiteering. Part of that strategy should involve using  to provide dispersal housing in communities. Experience shows that this is the best way to  while supporting those seeking refuge. The government’s resettlement scheme for refugees fleeing  shows that engaging local authorities in housing and support is key to the success of integration.

Any changes to asylum housing will create pressures for a UK housing sector in crisis. Yet the financial and social costs of the current system cannot be ignored. Supporting local authorities in the development and delivery of social housing must be a priority for the government, and housing asylum seekers should not be seen as an issue separate to that commitment.

Find out more

• This article is republished from  under a Creative Commons license. . 
• Find out more about Professor Jonathan Darling.
• Our Department of Geography is ranked 11th in the QS World University Rankings by Subject 2025. Visit our Geography webpages for more information on our undergraduate and postgraduate programmes.