Homes are defaced with ‘No HMO’ (Houses in Multiple Occupation) graffiti in Salford (Image: Getty Images)
Landlords are being offered rents of up to twice the market rate to house asylum seekers, prompting accusations that British families are being pushed aside under Labour. The deals, offered by accommodation provider Clearsprings Ready Homes, include three-year contracts and payments covering bills, council tax and maintenance.
One landlord in Southwark, south London, said he had been offered £4,500 a month for a three-bedroom flat to house migrants. That compares with £1,790 a month offered by Southwark Council for the same property to house social housing tenants. The landlord described the offer as “nuts”, claiming he would have had to terminate his existing agreement with the council and risk leaving families homeless to take it up.
He told The Sun: “I already rent to Southwark Council, and they are able to offer significantly more than the local authority, which to me is bizarre.”
He added: “I didn’t go with them because it would have meant terminating my contract with Southwark Council and putting families at serious risk of homelessness. I am not prepared to do that.”
The revelation has sparked criticism over the use of public money to secure accommodation for asylum seekers while families struggle to find affordable homes.
Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp said: “It is a day of shame for Labour that hard-working Brits are being kicked out of flats so they can be let out at twice the price for illegal immigrants.”
Reform UK’s Robert Jenrick also criticised the arrangements, saying: “This is everything that’s wrong with broken Britain.”
He added: “The Government is spending millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money to roll out the red carpet for illegal migrants, while leaving domestic abuse victims as afterthoughts.”
Mr Jenrick said a Reform government would put veterans and victims of domestic abuse first for housing.
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
Get top stories from The Express sent straight to your phone Join us on WhatsApp
Our community members are treated to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. You can check out at any time. Read our Privacy Policy
Clearsprings is operating under a ten-year Home Office contract worth around £7billion to house asylum seekers in southern England and Wales. It is one of three companies contracted to provide accommodation, alongside Serco and Mears Group.
The firm is responsible for housing around 30,000 migrants.
A document seen by the newspaper shows Clearsprings is seeking properties in several areas, including Bedford, Southampton, the Forest of Dean, Caerphilly and Wrexham.
The company is also demanding that some properties undergo refurbishment to meet its required standards, with landlords potentially expected to redecorate homes and install new carpets.
The Southwark landlord questioned why such requirements were being imposed on accommodation for asylum seekers when local authorities were paying less for properties used by families in need.
He said: “Why are these standards applying to migrants and not to families at risk of homelessness?”
Clearsprings is run by businessman Graham King, whose company reportedly made a profit of £62.6million in the year to January 2025, on turnover of almost £1.4billion.
The controversy comes as the Government attempts to reduce its reliance on hotels to accommodate asylum seekers who arrive in the UK, including those crossing the Channel in small boats.
More than 220,000 migrants have arrived by small boat since 2018. Home Office officials have closed more than 100 hotels and moved residents into houses in multiple occupation and disused military sites.
The Government has defended its approach, insisting that the contracts do not mean taxpayers are automatically footing the bill for the higher rents being offered.
A Home Office spokesman said: “We pay a capped and contractually agreed rate to accommodation providers.
“Any amount above that is covered by the contractor and not taxpayers.”
The department said it was working to house asylum seekers fairly across the country and claimed it had saved taxpayers more than £1billion on asylum support since the election by closing hotels.
It also said it had removed 80,000 people with no right to be in the UK since the election.
Clearsprings Ready Homes and Southwark Council have been approached for comment.
Fury at Labour’s ‘Nuts’ Deal to Offer Landlords Double Rent to House Migrants
The United Kingdom has recently witnessed growing controversy over the government’s approach to accommodating asylum seekers, following reports that a Home Office contractor has offered landlords substantially higher rents to provide housing for migrants. The arrangements have provoked criticism from politicians, landlords, and members of the public, particularly because many British families are struggling with rising housing costs, long social housing waiting lists, and increasing financial pressure. Critics have described the offers as unreasonable and questioned why accommodation for asylum seekers could attract significantly higher payments than properties used to house vulnerable local families. However, the government has defended its wider accommodation strategy, arguing that moving asylum seekers away from expensive hotels can reduce public expenditure. The controversy therefore raises important questions about public spending, housing shortages, immigration policy, and the responsibilities of the state towards different vulnerable groups.
According to a report published by The Sun on 20 October 2026, Clearsprings Ready Homes, a private company contracted by the Home Office to provide accommodation for asylum seekers, has approached landlords with offers that can exceed twice the amount paid by some local authorities for comparable properties. One reported example involved a three-bedroom flat in Southwark, south London. The landlord stated that Southwark Council paid approximately £1,790 per month to use the property for social housing, while Clearsprings offered £4,500 per month to accommodate asylum seekers. The proposed arrangement also included payments covering utility bills, council tax, and maintenance. These figures quickly attracted public attention because the difference between the two monthly rental offers was substantial. However, they represent a reported individual offer rather than proof that every asylum accommodation property receives the same payment. (The Sun, 20 October 2026).
The landlord involved reportedly rejected the proposal because accepting it would have required him to terminate his existing agreement with the local council. He expressed concern that withdrawing the property from the council’s housing arrangements could place a vulnerable family at risk of homelessness. His decision illustrates the ethical dilemma that can arise when landlords receive competing offers for properties that are already being used to meet important social needs. From a commercial perspective, a higher rental payment and a longer contract may be attractive. From a social perspective, however, transferring a property from one housing programme to another may create difficulties for families who depend on local authorities for accommodation. The case has therefore become a symbol of the tension between private financial incentives and the wider public interest.
Political criticism has been particularly strong. Opposition politicians have argued that the arrangements demonstrate a failure to prioritise British citizens who are struggling to secure affordable homes. They have questioned why government-funded contractors might offer higher rents for asylum accommodation while councils face strict financial limits when attempting to house homeless families. Some critics have also expressed concern about the potential impact on survivors of domestic abuse, students, and other groups who rely on affordable rental properties. These objections reflect a broader debate about whether public resources are being distributed fairly and whether the government is doing enough to protect vulnerable residents. Nevertheless, such criticisms should be distinguished from established facts: the reported offer does not, by itself, demonstrate that a family was actually evicted or that all asylum seekers receive preferential treatment in the housing market.
The government’s position is more complicated than the political headlines suggest. The Home Office has stated that it pays accommodation providers a capped, contractually agreed rate and that any amount above that rate is covered by the contractor rather than automatically being charged directly to taxpayers. The department has also argued that reducing reliance on hotels can generate significant savings. Hotel accommodation has been an expensive component of the UK’s asylum system, particularly when suitable housing cannot be found quickly enough. By transferring people into shared houses, residential properties, and other accommodation, the government hopes to reduce the overall cost of supporting asylum applicants while improving the management of the system. The Home Office has claimed that closing hotels has saved taxpayers more than £1 billion since the government took office. These claims make it necessary to examine the complete financial arrangements rather than judging the policy solely by one landlord’s proposed monthly rent. (AOL, 20 October 2026).
Nevertheless, questions about transparency and value for money remain important. If a private contractor can offer a landlord considerably more than a local authority, the public deserves to understand how those offers are funded and whether the arrangement produces savings overall. Even if the contractor covers the difference between its landlord payments and the amount reimbursed by the government, the financial structure should be clearly explained. Taxpayers have a legitimate interest in knowing whether public contracts are efficient, whether private companies receive reasonable returns, and whether cheaper alternatives are available. Greater transparency could help establish whether the reported offer represents an exceptional commercial decision or reflects a wider problem within the asylum accommodation system.
The issue is also closely connected to Britain’s wider housing crisis. Across many parts of the country, families face high private rents, limited access to social housing, and difficulties saving enough money to purchase their own homes. Local authorities frequently have to manage competing responsibilities while operating under financial constraints. In this environment, any indication that a government contractor may be competing with councils for the same limited housing stock can create public frustration. If landlords increasingly choose higher-paying contracts, local authorities could find it more difficult to secure properties for families at risk of homelessness. However, the actual effect will depend on the number of properties involved, local housing conditions, contractual arrangements, and whether additional accommodation is brought into the market.
At the same time, asylum seekers require suitable accommodation while their claims are being considered. People seeking asylum may have fled war, persecution, or serious threats to their safety, and the government has legal and administrative responsibilities for their support. Providing accommodation does not automatically mean that an applicant has been granted refugee status or permission to remain permanently in the country. Each asylum claim must be assessed through the relevant legal process. It is therefore important to distinguish between the question of whether asylum seekers should receive appropriate housing and the question of how that housing should be purchased. The central policy challenge is to provide suitable accommodation without unnecessarily increasing costs or reducing access to homes for other vulnerable groups.
One possible solution would be to improve coordination between the Home Office and local councils. Instead of allowing different publicly funded systems to compete for the same properties without sufficient coordination, the government could develop clearer procurement rules, share information about available housing, and establish transparent standards for rental payments. Local authorities could also be consulted more closely before large accommodation contracts are introduced in their areas. Such measures would not eliminate the housing shortage, but they could reduce unnecessary competition and help ensure that accommodation is allocated according to clearly defined needs.
Another important consideration is the government’s longer-term approach to immigration and housing. Reducing dependence on hotels requires a reliable supply of appropriate residential accommodation, but this should be part of a wider strategy rather than a temporary response to public pressure. Investment in affordable housing, faster processing of asylum applications, effective management of immigration cases, and better cooperation with local authorities could all contribute to a more sustainable system. Faster and fairer decision-making would also help reduce uncertainty for applicants, communities, and public agencies. Where people are not entitled to remain in the UK after the relevant legal processes have concluded, the government must manage their cases lawfully and efficiently.
Ultimately, the controversy surrounding the reported double-rent offers highlights a difficult question for British policymakers: how can the government meet its obligations to asylum seekers while protecting families who are already experiencing housing insecurity? A balanced approach must recognise both the humanitarian need for appropriate accommodation and the legitimate concerns of taxpayers and local communities. The government should explain its contracts clearly, demonstrate that public money is being used efficiently, and ensure that vulnerable British families are not unnecessarily disadvantaged by competing housing arrangements. At the same time, political debate should avoid treating asylum seekers as collectively responsible for Britain’s housing problems, which also reflect long-standing shortages of affordable homes and broader economic pressures.
In conclusion, the dispute over Clearsprings Ready Homes’ reported rental offers is more than a disagreement about the price of a three-bedroom flat. It reveals deeper concerns about fairness, government accountability, private contractors, and the allocation of scarce housing resources. Although the reported figures have fuelled criticism of Labour’s immigration and housing policies, a complete assessment requires examining the contractual details, the overall costs of asylum accommodation, and the real impact on local housing availability. The government must demonstrate that its policies offer value for money while protecting the interests of vulnerable residents. A fair and effective housing system should provide suitable accommodation for people seeking asylum without neglecting homeless families or placing unnecessary pressure on local authorities. Achieving that balance will require transparent spending, stronger coordination, adequate investment in housing, and policies based on evidence rather than political slogans.