
EXCLUSIVE Proof UK cares more about asylum seekers than its own citizens? Shock figures show councils are housing up to 10 times more asylum seekers than homeless people
Seventeen councils are accommodating up to 10 times more asylum seekers than homeless people, analysis suggests.
The biggest disparity was seemingly in Pendle, a borough inside Reform's newly-gained Lancashire authority.
Latest Government data shows 453 asylum seekers are being housed in Pendle. In contrast, only nine homeless households are in temporary accommodation.
Critics of Britain's immigration policy have seized upon the figures as proof we are ran by people who 'care more about illegal migrants than its own citizens'.
However, officials criticised MailOnline's 'misleading' analysis and argued that they could not control where homeless people choose to live.
The full results of our investigation can be viewed in our interactive map, which lays bare the true situation in every council.
Home Office data shows 89,000 asylum seekers – the equivalent of a town the size of Stevenage, Hastings or Southport – were being housed across England as of the end of March.
By comparison, 128,000 homeless 'households' were in temporary accommodation heading into 2025.
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, which keeps track of the number of homeless 'households', says their overall estimate equates to around 295,000 people.
Because it does not list specific figures for each council, the only way of comparing the two is by posting homeless households against the number of asylum seekers.
Ten councils did not publish figures on homeless households, meaning they were excluded from our analysis.
In total, more than a third of England's councils currently house asylum seekers at double the rate of homeless households.
Behind Pendle came Stockton-on-Tees (797 asylum seekers vs 26 homeless households) and Wyre (375 asylum seekers vs 14 homeless households).
Robert Bates, of the Centre for Migration Control thinktank, said: '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.
'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.
What is an asylum seeker?
Asylum is protection given by a country to someone fleeing from persecution in their own country.
An asylum seeker is someone who has applied for asylum and is awaiting a decision on whether they will be granted refugee status.
An asylum applicant who does not qualify for refugee status may still be granted leave to remain in the UK for humanitarian or other reasons.
An asylum seeker whose application is refused at initial decision may appeal the decision through an appeal process and, if successful, may be granted leave to remain.
'Anyone entering the country illegally should be detained and swiftly deported - it is only then that we can hope this madness will end.'
While an asylum seeker is waiting to hear the outcome of their claim, the Home Office is legally obligated to provide them housing if they need it.
If they are successful they become recognised as refugees – entitled to work and receive full state benefits.
From that point on, councils have statutory responsibility to look after housing, if the refugees are unable to.
But councils do not provide accommodation to everyone and instead use a priority system, which takes into account children and other vulnerability factors, to decide who gets a home.
It means that some refugees may also fall under the homeless category in official statistics.
Fuelled by an explosion in small boat crossings, the cost of accommodating asylum seekers has tripled to £4.2million a day.
Around 30,000 are currently kept in hotels, where they are usually provided meals along with £8.86 per week. The Chancellor Rachel Reeves promised last week to end the housing of asylum seekers in hotels over the next four years.
The handout amount rises to £49.18 per week if no meals are provided. Extra money is also provided to pregnant mothers and young children.
As well as getting free accommodation, asylum seekers are also entitled to taxpayer-funded NHS healthcare, prescriptions, dental care and children under 18 are required to go to school, where they may be able to get free meals.
Homeless people in temporary accommodation are offered full state benefits such as Universal Credit, and some hostels provide food that is paid through a service charge.
Those living in temporary accommodation make up the vast majority of homeless people, with only around 3,900 sleeping rough on any given night, according to the charity Shelter.
Critics claim that many homeless people have paid council tax and contributed for years to British tax and society, unlike asylum seekers.
Around four in five of those assessed as needing homeless relief of some kind were British nationals, according to the latest data.
Some of those left out in the cold are even veterans and ex-service personnel who have fought for the country in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Concerns have been raised that they may have to make do with a concrete pillow in a shop doorway, while they look up to see asylum seekers getting a cosy hotel bed on the same street.
Life on the streets is often dangerous, with rates of drinking and drug abuse high, leading to high rates of poor mental health and death compared to those who have a bed.
Alp Mehmet, of Migration Watch UK, said: '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.
'If they're not in hotels, they will have to be housed elsewhere.
'Then there's the 430,000 net migration added to the population last year.
'Well over half a 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 public has been expressing their discontentment with the apparent unfairness of the situation for some time.
A recent survey by IPSOS found 68 per cent of the public deem the numbers coming to the UK to seek refugee status or asylum too high.
And in March when MailOnline visited Coventry, the local authority with the fifth-highest number of supported asylum seekers in Britain, locals expressed their frustration with the process.
Louse and Dee said they were living in temporary accommodation and claimed the increasing numbers of asylum seekers in the area was making the housing shortage worse.
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.
'I don't think the city can handle the amount of people coming in.'
Dee, 38, said she had to live separately from her husband just to find a bed to sleep in and blasted the Government.
'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'm homeless too, we've had to separate so that one of us can get somewhere to sleep.
'I don't think we can handle the numbers, we can't house the people who are from this city.
'If they come over here and work and pay into the system, fair play to them. I know diverse people who I call my family. But the fact is, we need to help our own.'
In Manchester in November 2024, protesters against asylum seekers being housed locally held up signs which said 'House Our Homeless First'.
There have been some recent cases of local authorities block-booking entire hotels for homeless people, in the same way the Home Office does for asylum seekers.
Last year Milton Keynes council signed a deal to use all 140 rooms of Harben House Hotel for five years, which it will use to house homeless people.
A report in August revealed that the council was spending around £20m a year on temporary accommodation mainly in the private rented sector and it needed to find lower cost spaces.
In the battle for scarce accommodation, councils have lost out on renting hotels due to Home Office contractors seeking space for asylum seekers outbidding them.
Furthermore, many asylum seekers become homeless once they are granted refugee status and have to find their own accommodation.
They are given 56 days to move on from asylum accommodation following the issue of their decision, which was extended from 28 days in December, but some campaigners complain it is still not enough time.
The No Accommodation Network (Naccom), an umbrella organisation for 140 frontline groups working with asylum seekers, refugees and other migrants across the UK, said homelessness among refugees has doubled in the last year.
In data shared with the Guardian in November, it said 1,941 refugees had now found themselves without accommodation – the highest number they had ever dealt with.
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.
'We've taken immediate action to fix the broken asylum system this Government inherited, by increasing asylum decision making by 52 per cent and removing 30,000 people with no right to be here. We have already made asylum savings of half a billion.
'We are also taking urgent and decisive action to end homelessness, fix the foundations of local Government and drive forward our Plan for Change by providing £1bn for crucial homelessness services this year so councils can support families faster.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Telegraph
16 minutes ago
- Telegraph
EU rules that push up car insurance to be scrapped in Brexit bonus
EU rules that force law-abiding British motorists to stump up for compensation claims made by uninsured drivers will be scrapped by ministers. Heidi Alexander, the Transport Secretary, will use Brexit powers to rip up the Brussels regulations and return to a 'common-sense' approach. The UK was forced to apply the law by Eurocrats, despite ministers branding it 'morally questionable' and warning it rewarded criminal behaviour. Car insurance firms pay into a pot, known as the fund of last resort, which pays out to drivers who have been hit by an uninsured or unidentified driver. The cash pot means that, where costs cannot be reclaimed from the driver at fault, victims of crashes are still compensated for damage to their vehicle. Originally, the fund was not open to claims from uninsured drivers, but in 2017, ministers were warned that their exclusion was illegal under EU rules. As a result, the Government said it 'had no choice' but to change the law or run the risk of facing limitless daily fines from the EU Commission. Since then, uninsured drivers who are either hit by another uninsured motorist or involved in a hit-and-run have been eligible for compensation. The money for the fund of last resort is raised by a levy on insurance firms, which pass the cost onto their customers in higher premiums. A Government source told The Telegraph: 'We are reintroducing the exclusion of property damage compensation for uninsured drivers. 'Uninsured drivers should not be able to benefit in the same way as those driving lawfully. 'The Transport Secretary will restore this common-sense agreement because this Labour government is tackling criminal behaviour and backing all road users to the hilt.' Plans to repeal the EU law were drawn up by the last Tory government, which launched a consultation just before Rishi Sunak called the general election. At the time, Guy Opperman, the then roads minister, said the EU rule was 'morally questionable at best, and a cost carried by all legal motorists'. 'When we were members of the European Union, we were obliged to allow this. Now we have left, we can determine our own course of action,' he said. It has now been picked up by Labour, which will introduce the change. The feedback showed there was 'overwhelming support' for changing the rules to demonstrate that 'uninsured driving is unacceptable'. 'The vast majority of law-abiding motorists pay for claims from uninsured drivers for property damage through their motor insurance premiums,' the Government said. 'Removing this right for uninsured drivers demonstrates that the government is focused on tackling criminal behaviour and sensitive to regulations that impact negatively on the general public. 'It will send a message that uninsured drivers should not benefit from being compensated by the fund of last resort for property damage.' The Motor Insurers' Bureau, which oversees the fund of last resort, said it had been 'working closely' with ministers to reintroduce the exclusion. 'This will ensure uninsured drivers aren't able to claim compensation for property damage following collisions involving other uninsured or hit-and-run drivers,' it said. 'Uninsured drivers are not just breaking the law, but they make roads more dangerous and increase the cost of motor insurance for the honest majority.' The change can be introduced quickly because it does not require new legislation. Instead, the requirement to compensate uninsured drivers can be removed by amending agreements between Ms Alexander and the MIB.


Telegraph
31 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Watchdog opens case into British charity amid concerns funds end up with Hamas
The charities watchdog has opened a compliance case into a British charity over 'serious allegations' that the money it raises for families in Gaza ends up with Hamas. The Charity Commission is examining the way that Save One Life UK distributes the money it collects in the UK. The London-based charity is already being investigated by counter-terror police over claims the cash it distributes for children and their families may end up in the coffers of the banned terror group. The Telegraph revealed earlier this year that concerns have been raised about an alleged lack of control over the way the funds raised are spent. But the Charity Commission, which regulates all charities operating in Britain, has now opened a preliminary investigation – known as a regulatory compliance case – following allegations made about Save One Life UK. A spokesman for the watchdog said: 'We are aware of serious allegations made about Save One Life, which the charity also promptly reported to us. As a result, we have opened a regulatory compliance case to allow us to gather more information. 'As part of this, we have engaged with the charity's trustees and are currently assessing both the charity's activities and the trustees' oversight, particularly in relation to the application of its funds overseas.' The charity has raised more than £5 million in the past five years, with most of its aid directed to Gaza since the start of Israel's military retaliation to the Oct 7 attacks by Hamas in 2023. A complaint about Save One Life UK's activities was submitted to the Metropolitan Police in April, via the Government's online system for reporting material promoting terrorism or extremism. Scotland Yard sources said the complaint was 'passed on to the counter-terrorism internet referral unit for investigation'. Cash for 'those most in need' Save One Life tells potential donors on its website that it is 'working with the Ministry of Social Development in Gaza' (MoSD) to deliver cash to 'those most in need'. Hamas, which governs Gaza and is banned as a terror group by the UK government, has exercised effective control over the MoSD in Gaza for several years. Save One Life has said: 'Beneficiaries are pre-vetted and approved for assistance by the ministry, and the financial assistance is directly distributed, accounted for and audited and is distributed strictly in line with the principles of Zakat [Islamic system of charitable giving].' The Telegraph previously reported that publicity photographs submitted to police appeared to show charity workers handing over envelopes allegedly thought to contain cash to children in Gaza In other footage, one of Save One Life UK's workers describes giving cash to families bombed out of their homes and living in temporary shelters amid the ruins. That has raised the fear that the charity has little control over where the funds it has raised in Britain ultimately end up in an area that is governed by Hamas. 'Unknown broker in Turkey' The complainant told police: 'Save One Life UK is a registered charity that is sending money to Gaza via an unknown broker in Turkey. 'A charity can be investigated if it is suspected of transferring money for non-charitable purposes, including political activity and support of terrorism, which would include allegations that the charity may provide material support for a proscribed terrorist group like Hamas.' Among the charity's trustees is Addeel Khan, the director of equity, inclusion and culture at University College London (UCL) and a former senior executive with the British Red Cross, who is a leading figure in the field of diversity, equity, and inclusion policy. In a live-streamed video posted on Facebook in April 2021, Mr Khan said the charity works with the MoSD to vet beneficiaries. He said: 'They make sure they're vetted and the money is checked, ID is provided, to make sure the right people are receiving it – and there is clear transparency in terms of where the money goes.' Save One Life UK launched an appeal for Gaza just hours after Hamas had carried out its deadly Oct 7 attacks on Israel, which killed more than 1,200 people, the single biggest loss of Jewish life since the Holocaust. Its Gaza Under Attack appeal appeared to come before Israel had launched any significant military response to the Hamas attacks. In one image posed on social media on 10.16am on Oct 7, Save One Life UK stated: 'Our brothers and sisters in Palestine are under attack again.' In another poster, published on the first anniversary of the attacks, and after months of bombardment by Israel on Gaza, Save One Life UK declared: 'Years of resistance. Palestine stands strong: 12 months of brutal violence. Decades of resilient resistance.' 'False allegations' A spokesman for Save One Life said: 'We stand robustly behind our cash aid programme in Gaza to support the innocent civilians of Gaza suffering from the ongoing blockade and violence being committed by Israel. 'Cash aid is provided to Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza by a number of organisations, including the UN and the IFRC. 'We have taken our own steps to notify the required bodies and are working with them transparently to address these false allegations.' The spokesman added: 'At a time when thousands have been killed through starvation and lack of funds to purchase bare essentials, we need the world and specifically the British public and media to support charitable efforts for the innocent victims. 'We always operate in full compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. For the avoidance of doubt, we do not work with Hamas or any proscribed terrorist organisation.'


Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Badenoch: BBC should not show ‘extremist' Kneecap at Glastonbury
Kemi Badenoch said the BBC should not broadcast Kneecap 'propaganda' at Glastonbury Festival next week. The Tory leader said on X that the BBC 'should not be rewarding extremism' by showing the Irish republican rap group's set. Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh, a Kneecap member, appeared in court accused of displaying a flag in support of proscribed terrorist organisation Hezbollah while saying 'up Hamas, up Hezbollah' at a gig in November last year. Reacting to a story in The Times that claimed the BBC had not banned the group from its Glastonbury coverage, Mrs Badenoch tweeted: 'The BBC should not be showing Kneecap propaganda. 'One Kneecap band member is currently on bail, charged under the Terrorism Act. 'As a publicly funded platform, the BBC should not be rewarding extremism.' Mrs Badenoch has previously called for the group to be banned from Glastonbury. And last year, Kneecap won a discrimination case against the Government in Belfast High Court after Mrs Badenoch tried to refuse them a £14,250 funding award when she was a minister. Kneecap took aim at Mrs Badenoch in their latest single, The Recap, released just before their headline set at London's Wide Awake festival in May. The song mocked her attempts to block their arts funding and the Conservative Party's general election loss. On Wednesday, Ó hAnnaidh, who performs under the stage name Mo Chara, was cheered by hundreds of supporters as he arrived with bandmates Naoise Ó Cairealláin and J Ó Dochartaigh at Westminster magistrates' court in 'Free Mo Chara' T-shirts. During the proceedings, the court heard the 27-year-old is 'well within his rights' to voice his opinions on Israel and Palestine, but the alleged incident at the O2 Forum in Kentish Town, north London, is a 'wholly different thing'. Ó hAnnaidh was released on unconditional bail until his next hearing at the same court on Aug 20. Following the hearing, the rapper said: 'For anybody going to Glastonbury, you can see us there at 4pm on the Saturday. 'If you can't be there we'll be on the BBC, if anybody watches the BBC. We'll be at Wembley in September. 'But most importantly: free, free Palestine.' The charge came after a counter-terrorism police investigation after the historical gig footage came to light, which also allegedly shows the group calling for the deaths of MPs. In April, Kneecap apologised last month to the families of murdered MPs but said footage of the incident had been 'exploited and weaponised'. In an initial post in response to the charge, Kneecap said: '14,000 babies are about to die of starvation in Gaza, with food sent by the world sitting on the other side of a wall, and once again the British establishment is focused on us. 'We deny this 'offence' and will vehemently defend ourselves, this is political policing, this is a carnival of distraction. 'We are not the story, genocide is, as they profit from genocide, they use an 'anti-terror law' against us for displaying a flag thrown on stage. A charge not serious enough to even warrant their crown court, instead a court that doesn't have a jury. What's the objective? 'To restrict our ability to travel. To prevent us speaking to young people across the world. To silence voices of compassion. To prosecute artists who dare speak out. 'Instead of defending innocent people, or the principles of international law they claim to uphold, the powerful in Britain have abetted slaughter and famine in Gaza, just as they did in Ireland for centuries. Then, like now, they claim justification. 'The IDF units they arm and fly spy plane missions for are the real terrorists, the whole world can see it.' A BBC spokesman said: 'As the broadcast partner, the BBC will be bringing audiences extensive music coverage from Glastonbury, with artists booked by the festival organisers. 'While the BBC doesn't ban artists, our plans will ensure that our programming will meet our editorial guidelines. Decisions about our output will be made in the lead-up to the festival.'