A growing divide in housing provision is fuelling claims that Britain prioritises asylum seekers over its own homeless citizens. An investigation has revealed that 17 councils across England are accommodating up to ten times more asylum seekers than homeless households, prompting public outrage and political criticism.

 

 

The starkest disparity has been found in Pendle, a borough recently won by Reform UK in Lancashire, where 453 asylum seekers are reportedly being housed, compared to just nine homeless households in temporary accommodation. Other areas with similar discrepancies include Stockton-on-Tees, which hosts 797 asylum seekers against 26 homeless households, and Wyre, with 375 versus 14.

 

 

Critics argue these numbers expose a deeply unfair system. Robert Bates of the Centre for Migration Control stated, “Those who were born here and have contributed to the economy have been abandoned, and left on the streets, in favour of undocumented young men towards whom we should have no moral or legal obligation. Thousands of British veterans and families are facing real hardship but are denied even a fraction of the generosity extended to asylum seekers.”

 

He added, “Scattering these people across the country places further strain on communities suffering with a dysfunctional housing market, increasing rents and making it harder for young people to own a home. Anyone entering the country illegally should be detained and swiftly deported—it is only then that we can hope this madness will end.”

 

While critics cite inequality, officials argue the comparison itself is flawed. A Government spokesperson said: “This analysis is incorrect and misleading as it compares the number of individual asylum seekers with homeless households, which can contain more than one person.”

 

The Home Office is legally required to house asylum seekers awaiting a decision on their claim. If successful, they are granted refugee status and entitled to work, claim benefits, and seek housing through local councils—subject to a priority system based on vulnerability and need. However, officials emphasise that councils cannot control where homeless individuals choose to reside, and asylum housing is assigned based on national dispersal systems.

 

Yet the optics remain jarring. In Coventry—home to one of the country’s highest asylum seeker populations—locals expressed their frustration. Louise, 37, said: “I'm currently homeless. The houses go to the asylum seekers rather than the actual homeless. I'm in a shared accommodation and I am technically homeless. I think the Government should be looking after their own before helping other people.”

 

Dee, 38, added, “I think it's ridiculous that asylum seekers can come over here and get housed but my husband, who has paid taxes his whole life, is on the street. I don't think we can handle the numbers, we can't house the people who are from this city.”

 

The cost of accommodating asylum seekers has ballooned, now reaching £4.2 million a day. About 30,000 remain in hotels, receiving meals and an allowance of £8.86 per week—or £49.18 if meals aren't provided. They also receive free NHS care, prescriptions, dental services, and school access for their children.

 

The issue is further complicated by the fact that many newly recognised refugees also fall into homelessness. The No Accommodation Network (Naccom) reported a doubling of refugee homelessness in the past year, citing nearly 2,000 cases—the highest they’ve ever recorded. Once refugee status is granted, individuals have just 56 days to vacate asylum housing and find accommodation on their own.

 

Alp Mehmet of Migration Watch UK highlighted the broader picture: “Over 100,000 people applied for asylum in 2024, including main applicants and their dependants. There will be just as many seeking asylum this year. Then there’s the 430,000 net migration added to the population last year. Well over half a million people needing a roof over their heads, roofs that won’t be available to British citizens. When will the Government see sense and end this madness? Get a grip, Sir Keir!”

 

The Government says it is responding, noting increased asylum decision rates, £1 billion allocated to homelessness services, and an effort to stop using hotels for asylum seekers within four years. Yet, with public frustration mounting—as evidenced by protests and polling showing 68% believe asylum numbers are too high—the pressure on Westminster to resolve the housing crisis for all remains as urgent as ever.

 

  Adapted by ASEAN Now from Daily Mail  2025-06-23

 

 

Nah.

Can't be true. 

But a picture can paint a thousand words.

 

when the homeboys are homeless and the carpet riders aren't, you know something is definitely wrong

Bring back Guy Fawkes, and then start again. 

There's going to be a massive backlash against this and rightly so.

 

Civil unrest is already starting. Southport, Ballymena, etc. 

 

Deportations of millions is now a moderate viewpoint.

 

Remigration is inevitable. 

4 hours ago, Social Media said:

The starkest disparity has been found in Pendle, a borough recently won by Reform UK in Lancashire, where 453 asylum seekers are reportedly being housed, compared to just nine homeless households in temporary accommodation.

 

I'm sure the usual gaslighters will be along shortly to tell us we are imagining all of this. 

 

 

13 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

I'm sure the usual gaslighters will be along shortly to tell us we are imagining all of this. 

 

 

 

Fun fact ( If you can call it that )

 

There are currently 1.4 million British Citizens awaiting Social Housing ( Council houses in old money )

 

https://www.cih.org/news/cih-response-to-speculation-on-a-british-homes-for-british-workers-policy/

 

By the next GE, that number will be nearer 2 million.

 

700 - 800 dwellings might be built by the next GE, out of a target of 1.5 million, but not many of them will be Social Housing.

 

I wonder if any of the gaslighters won't to argue with the Chartered Institute of Housing 😀😀

Direct consequence of the previous Tory Government losing control of the UK’s borders.

 

5 hours ago, Social Media said:

The starkest disparity has been found in Pendle, a borough recently won by Reform UK in Lancashire, where 453 asylum seekers are reportedly being housed, compared to just nine homeless households in temporary accommodation.

Oh dear, a problem to be resolved rather than poked at.

5 hours ago, Social Media said:

Louise, 37, said: “I'm currently homeless. The houses go to the asylum seekers rather than the actual homeless. I'm in a shared accommodation and I am technically homeless. I think the Government should be looking after their own before helping other people.”

 

Indeed. Unfortunately, Labour hate indigenous British people like you Louise.

 

They roll out the red carpet for asylum seekers while brushing you under it.

 

 

 

The more we empower minorities the more they want until the minority Muslim dictate to the majority…. like now

We have grown up in the UK and had every opportunity to make a go of it.

If we are homeless we have no one to blame but ourselves, poor choices and laziness.

 

Refugees who have fled dangerous places with only the shirts on the backs need a leg up when first arriving. Then they develop into tax paying citzens and business owners creating more jobs.

 

I would rather my tax dollars going to them than the laziest 5% of Brits with their hand out who will never make anything of themselves and will be a burden on the rest of us for their entire life.

"The UK signed a £480m deal two years ago to pay for additional border patrols and surveillance equipment such as drones and night-vision binoculars. But government sources pointed out that Keir Starmer agreed a deal with Macron at the start of the year to increase measures to halt Channel crossings." Seems to me that the French are doing eff all and pocketing £480 million. May be it is time to tell the French to eff off as they are doing eff all, it would seem.

6 hours ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

There's going to be a massive backlash against this and rightly so.

 

Civil unrest is already starting. Southport, Ballymena, etc. 

 

Deportations of millions is now a moderate viewpoint.

 

Remigration is inevitable. 

Won't happen. Today's Brits are spineless. The UK is descending into a hell hole.

1 hour ago, wombat said:

The more we empower minorities the more they want until the minority Muslim dictate to the majority…. like now

They won't be a minority soon. Why not give them winter proof tents?

41 minutes ago, Thingamabob said:

Won't happen. Today's Brits are spineless. The UK is descending into a hell hole.

The UK has already descended into a hell hole a very deep one!

53 minutes ago, Thingamabob said:

Won't happen. Today's Brits are spineless. The UK is descending into a hell hole.

Not much choice really, people who dissent now end up in jail.

If I were in the UK, I'd keep quiet and enjoy the little freedom that I had left, rather than sit in a cell.

1 hour ago, MalcolmB said:

We have grown up in the UK and had every opportunity to make a go of it.

If we are homeless we have no one to blame but ourselves, poor choices and laziness.

 

Refugees who have fled dangerous places with only the shirts on the backs need a leg up when first arriving. Then they develop into tax paying citzens and business owners creating more jobs.

 

I would rather my tax dollars going to them than the laziest 5% of Brits with their hand out who will never make anything of themselves and will be a burden on the rest of us for their entire life.

Yeah GOAT, but you're Australian and hate Brits.

6 hours ago, The Cyclist said:

 

Fun fact ( If you can call it that )

 

There are currently 1.4 million British Citizens awaiting Social Housing ( Council houses in old money )

 

https://www.cih.org/news/cih-response-to-speculation-on-a-british-homes-for-british-workers-policy/

 

By the next GE, that number will be nearer 2 million.

 

700 - 800 dwellings might be built by the next GE, out of a target of 1.5 million, but not many of them will be Social Housing.

 

I wonder if any of the gaslighters won't to argue with the Chartered Institute of Housing 😀😀

I thought 20% of new builds had to be for social housing?

5 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

I thought 20% of new builds had to be for social housing?

 

   You thought wrong . 

11 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

I thought 20% of new builds had to be for social housing?

 

20% affordable housing, which is not Social Housing.

 

Developers start a project and drop the affordable housing as being non viable

 

This is US centric, but the same applies in Canada, The UK and every other Western Nation

 

Quote

It turns out building affordable housing is not particularly affordable. In fact, there is a huge gap between what these buildings cost to construct and maintain and the rents most people can pay. Without the help of too-scarce government subsidies for creating, preserving, and operating affordable apartments, building these homes is often impossible.

 

In the UK, Housing Associations are meant to buy these " Affordable Homes " and then rent them to Social tenants.

 

The HA's do not have the money to buy them.

 

Builders have no desire to rent homes, build and sell, move on to the next project.

2 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   You thought wrong . 

No, not at all, i am referring to big developments.

3 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

No, not at all, i am referring to big developments.

 

   You would still be wrong . 

6 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

No, not at all, i am referring to big developments.

 

Have a read at this, then apply it all over the UK

 

https://www.d-w-s.co.uk/blog/legal-loophole-lets-developers-build-less-affordable-housing

1 minute ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   You would still be wrong . 

actually no, its was just explained by cyclist.. affordable housing is same same, basically housing to replace council houses. The name changed that is all. I guess "council house" has a stigma these days

2 hours ago, MalcolmB said:

I would rather my tax dollars going to them than the laziest 5% of Brits with their hand out who will never make anything of themselves and will be a burden on the rest of us for their entire life.

You pay tax "dollars"? I thought you were British.

3 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

actually no, its was just explained by cyclist.. affordable housing is same same, basically housing to replace council houses. The name changed that is all. I guess "council house" has a stigma these days

 

  20 % of new builds do not have to be used for social housing .

You were wrong 

2 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

actually no, its was just explained by cyclist.. affordable housing is same same, basically housing to replace council houses. The name changed that is all. I guess "council house" has a stigma these days

 

Not very well

 

Who is going to buy a property of upwards of £400k, when 20% of them are for social tenants ?
 

Although you are correct. Affordable housing ( which is a misnomer ) has replaced Council Housing.

 

Probably twofold.

 

The stigma and they are meant to bought up by Housing Associations and not the Council.

4 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

Not very well

 

Who is going to buy a property of upwards of £400k, when 20% of them are for social tenants ?
 

Although you are correct. Affordable housing ( which is a misnomer ) has replaced Council Housing.

 

Probably twofold.

 

The stigma and they are meant to bought up by Housing Associations and not the Council.

Yeah, that is what i remember, when an old timber yard locally was sold for development, all the posh people around the area were kicking off because of the percentage that had to be social housing, this was 15- 20 years ago, so i guess its all changed since

Eventually the people of England will say enough is enough and take the law into their own hands like they did in Ireland 

My mate married an African over 30 years ago to help stop her deportation. While over staying she somehow got a very desirable housing association flat in London, even then a single person would have to wait years, took her a few months, and totally illegally. They did not evict her and eventually claimed the 16k to leave to put towards a deposit. Ironically she worked later for the home office processing asylum claims.