Number of asylum seekers living in ‘non-hotel’ accommodation hits 73,000
The number of asylum seekers housed outside hotels in the UK rose to 73,068 in the year to June 2026, while the number in hotels fell by half to 16,021. The figures indicate that the Government is shifting accommodation away from hotels as it pursues its pledge to end their use during this Parliament, though increased use of shared housing and former military sites has drawn local opposition.
Thirteen hotels closed earlier this month, leaving fewer than 160 in use compared with a peak of about 400 under the previous Conservative government. Asylum applications fell 21% to 85,891, with 33,949 applicants—40% of the total—having crossed the Channel in small boats; the most common claimant nationalities were Eritrean, Sudanese, Afghan, Somali and Iranian.
- More than 73,000 asylum seekers are now housed outside hotels.
- Hotel accommodation fell to its lowest recorded level.
- UK asylum applications dropped 21% over the year.
New here? Start with this
People who claim asylum in the UK say they cannot safely return to their home country and ask for protection. While their cases are considered, the Government is responsible for providing basic accommodation and financial support to people who would otherwise be without it.
For several years, many asylum seekers have been placed in hotels because of pressure on the system and a backlog of undecided cases. The Government has faced criticism over the cost and suitability of hotels, and has sought to move people into other types of accommodation, including shared houses and former military sites.
The issue is also linked to crossings of the English Channel in small boats, as some people who arrive this way later claim asylum. Decisions about where people are housed can affect local areas, while the number of applications and the speed of decisions influence demand for accommodation.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters argue that moving asylum seekers out of hotels is a sensible response to an expensive and publicly unpopular emergency arrangement, while still meeting the UK’s legal and humanitarian duty to provide basic accommodation during claim processing. They contend that shared housing and repurposed sites can be cheaper, less disruptive to the hospitality sector and better suited to a system in which many applicants need housing for extended periods. On this view, the reduction in hotel use is a measurable step towards restoring a more orderly, sustainable asylum system.
The case against
Critics argue that replacing hotels with large-scale shared housing or former military sites may simply shift the burden to communities with less capacity and fewer services, especially if decisions are made with limited local consultation. They question whether some sites can provide safe, dignified and appropriate living conditions for vulnerable people, and warn that dispersal without adequate investment can intensify local tensions. On this view, reducing hotel numbers should not become the overriding goal if it leads to poorer standards, weaker integration or accommodation imposed on unwilling areas.