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.

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 reported arrangement has sparked a wider political row over whether public money intended to provide accommodation for asylum seekers is creating unfair competition for homes that councils need for vulnerable residents. Critics argue that local authorities already face difficulties securing suitable housing for families who are homeless or at risk of losing their homes. They fear that higher offers from private contractors could encourage landlords to switch properties to asylum accommodation.

The dispute has also put the Government under pressure to explain how its accommodation contracts work, how much taxpayers ultimately pay and whether the system delivers value for money.

Why Is the Contractor Offering More?

Clearsprings Ready Homes is one of the private companies contracted by the Home Office to provide accommodation for asylum seekers. Its reported offers include three-year agreements, with bills, council tax and maintenance costs covered as part of the arrangement. The company has been seeking properties in several locations, including Bedford, Southampton, the Forest of Dean, Caerphilly and Wrexham. <Cite refs={[“turn541395search0″,”turn541395news5”]}/>

For landlords, a long-term agreement offering a higher rental income and covering additional expenses may be financially attractive. But the same offer can create a problem for councils attempting to secure homes within restricted budgets.

The Southwark example illustrates the difference. The landlord reportedly faced a choice between continuing an existing arrangement with the council or accepting a substantially higher offer from the asylum accommodation contractor. He decided against switching because he did not want to put the family currently housed in the property at risk of homelessness. <Cite refs={[“turn541395search2″,”turn541395news5”]}/>

The case does not prove that every landlord is being offered double the rent, nor does it establish that families have been evicted as a result of the scheme. It does, however, highlight the potential for competing publicly funded housing arrangements to offer different financial terms for similar properties.

That is the central concern behind the criticism: whether the Government’s approach to asylum accommodation could unintentionally make it more difficult for councils to house people already in need.

Opposition Politicians Attack the Arrangement

The reported offers have prompted criticism from Conservative and Reform UK politicians, who argue that British families should not be disadvantaged by a system designed to accommodate asylum seekers.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp condemned the arrangements, arguing that the higher offers could place vulnerable British households at a disadvantage. Reform politicians have also criticised the use of public money to secure accommodation at rates substantially above those paid by councils. <Cite refs={[“turn541395search0″,”turn541395search1”]}/>

Their argument is that housing policy should prioritise people who are already facing homelessness, including families escaping domestic abuse, veterans and other vulnerable residents. They say the Government should explain why a contractor operating within a publicly funded system can reportedly offer considerably more than a local authority.

Reform UK has used the controversy to argue for a tougher approach to asylum accommodation and immigration enforcement. Its proposed approach includes closing asylum hotels and changing how people who arrive without permission are dealt with. Those are political proposals, however, rather than measures that have automatically followed from the reported rental offers. <Cite refs={[“turn541395search1”]}/>

The debate is also taking place against a backdrop of wider concern about the availability of affordable housing. Many councils face competing demands from residents requiring temporary accommodation, families on waiting lists and people who need specialist housing support. In that context, reports of a publicly funded contractor offering substantially more for a property are likely to attract scrutiny.

Labour and the Home Office Face Questions

The Government’s response centres on the distinction between the amount a contractor offers a landlord and the amount the Home Office pays under its contract.

A Home Office spokesperson said the department pays accommodation providers a capped and contractually agreed rate, adding that any amount above that is covered by the contractor rather than automatically passed on to taxpayers. The department has also said that closing hotels has saved more than £1 billion in asylum support costs since the election. <Cite refs={[“turn541395search0″,”turn541395search2”]}/>

That explanation is significant. The reported £4,500 offer is not proof that the Home Office itself pays £4,500 directly for the flat. The reported figure describes what the landlord says the contractor offered. The contractor’s payment to the landlord and the amount it receives under its Home Office contract are separate parts of the financial arrangement.

Nevertheless, questions remain about the wider economics of the scheme. If a contractor pays more to secure housing, the public interest requires clarity about how the overall contract is priced, what costs are covered and whether the arrangement is more economical than alternatives such as hotels.

The Home Office has been seeking to reduce its reliance on hotels, which have been a costly part of the asylum accommodation system. Moving people into suitable residential properties may help achieve that objective, but the value of the approach depends on the terms of the contracts and the availability of appropriate housing.

A lower hotel bill does not automatically establish that every residential arrangement represents good value. Equally, a high individual rental offer does not, on its own, establish that the entire accommodation programme is wasteful. Assessing the policy requires a broader comparison of total costs, standards, location and long-term outcomes.

Could Vulnerable Families Lose Out?

The most immediate concern is the potential effect on people who depend on council housing arrangements.

Local authorities have responsibilities to assist eligible households experiencing homelessness, but they must also work within available budgets and housing supply. If private contractors can consistently offer substantially higher rents for the same properties, councils may find it harder to retain landlords or secure new accommodation.

That possibility is especially worrying where properties are already being used to house families who have few alternatives. Losing a home can create further costs for councils, disrupt children’s education and place additional pressure on emergency accommodation services.

However, it is important to distinguish the risk of displacement from confirmed evidence of widespread evictions. In the reported Southwark case, the landlord declined the offer specifically because he did not want to put the existing family at risk. The available reporting does not establish how many other landlords accepted similar offers or how many council tenants were actually displaced. <Cite refs={[“turn541395search2″,”turn541395news5”]}/>

That missing information matters. A comprehensive assessment would need to establish the number of properties involved, the rents actually paid, the number of contracts transferred from council use and the consequences for people who previously occupied those homes.

What Should Happen Next?

The controversy raises several questions that the Government and its contractors should be prepared to answer.

First, how does the Home Office establish the maximum amount it will pay for accommodation in different areas? Rental prices vary significantly across the country, and a standard approach may not reflect local housing markets.

Second, what checks ensure that asylum accommodation contracts do not unnecessarily compete with councils for properties needed by homeless families? Better coordination between local authorities and central government could help identify pressure points before vulnerable households are affected.

Third, how are the total costs of residential accommodation compared with hotel accommodation? Published information about rents, maintenance, contract payments and occupancy rates would help Parliament and the public judge whether the policy is achieving its stated aims.

Finally, what safeguards are available when a proposed contract could displace an existing vulnerable household? Housing decisions should take account of the practical consequences for everyone affected, rather than treating each property as an isolated financial transaction.

The reported offers have exposed a difficult tension between two public responsibilities: providing accommodation for people seeking asylum while ensuring that local families facing homelessness are not overlooked.

The Government maintains that its contractual arrangements cap what taxpayers pay and that reducing hotel use has generated savings. Critics argue that the reported rental offers raise serious questions about priorities and competition for limited housing.

Neither position removes the need for transparent evidence. The decisive issue is whether the system can provide suitable asylum accommodation at a reasonable cost without undermining councils’ ability to house vulnerable residents.

Until more information is available about the number of offers, the contracts behind them and their actual effect on local housing, claims about the overall cost and scale of the problem should be treated cautiously. But the Southwark case has made one issue difficult to ignore: when publicly funded organisations compete for the same homes, the Government must be able to explain why the arrangements are necessary, what they cost and how people at risk of homelessness will be protected.