Refugee homelessness increased at an alarming rate in 2023-2024. According to official government statistics, homelessness among people leaving asylum accommodation rose by 251%. Not only is this hugely traumatic for new refugees, but frontline services are feeling the impact too, with NACCOM members accommodating nearly double the number of refugees in 2023-24 than in the previous year. 

However, whilst much attention has been given to the challenges faced by people leaving the asylum system following a positive decision, less attention has been paid to the experiences of those initially refused asylum, many of whom are currently in the asylum appeals backlog. 

As we described in our 2023 ‘Refused?’ report, people refused asylum after appeal have no recourse to public funds (NRPF) and often face extreme hardship, including destitution, homelessness and declining physical and mental health.  

The sudden rise in refugee homelessness can be traced back to the attempt made by the previous government to clear the asylum backlog before the end of 2023, which resulted in the highest number of positive asylum decisions made in a single quarter since 2001. The clearance of the current appeals backlog, however, could result in a second homelessness crisis amongst people leaving the asylum estate, with devastating consequences for individuals, communities, and local services.  

To prevent this, the Government urgently needs to: establish a move-on process that genuinely supports everyone leaving the asylum system; recognise and address the impact that restrictions on accessing public funds have on homelessness; ensure a fair and just system for people seeking asylum; and ultimately dismantle the hostile environment so that people aren’t routinely forced to endure homelessness because of their immigration status. 

Poor decision-making leads to more asylum appeals 

The Home Office’s poor standard of asylum decision-making has faced intense scrutiny from both independent inspectors and the voluntary sector, with the latter raising issues including flawed credibility assessments; unrealistic and unlawful evidential burden being placed on applicants; a starting point of disbelief; and an inadequate learning culture and lack of independent oversight. Decisions are made en masse and at speed, often by inexperienced staff – as was the case during the 2023 asylum backlog clearance.  

44,433 people were refused asylum across 2024 – a 40% increase on the previous year, and 682% more than in 2022. This matched an overall decline in the asylum grant rate, which fell to 47% in 2024, from 67% in 2023, and 74% in 2022. A negative asylum decision comes with a right of appeal, and nearly half (48%) of these appeals are successful.  

Simply put, poor decision-making leads to more asylum appeals. This means that a significant number of people are forced to rely on the courts to get the protection they deserve, but are initially denied, and as a result face trauma, uncertainty and hardship, as documented in ‘Refused?’. There are currently a record number of people awaiting an outcome on their asylum appeal in the court’s backlog, which has increased from 7,173 at the start of 2023, to 41,987 at the end of 2024. 

A lack of legal advice is endangering lives  

It is estimated that approximately half of all asylum applicants are without a solicitor at the point of opening their claim. It can be even more challenging to find and maintain legal representation for appeals.   

Several large providers stopped offering this service with the introduction of fixed fees in 2022. With immigration and asylum being highly specialist areas, few general advice agencies cover work such as asylum appeals. Not only have voluntary agencies been unable to fill the gaps left by large providers, but many specialist services supporting people to lodge appeals will often lack the capacity to provide legal representation at hearings.  

As one interviewee in our ‘Refused?’ research told us: 

“After I appeal the solicitor wrote me a letter that saying…they are not going to support my case anymore, that they are dropping the case…” 

Another interviewee described the challenges posed by the lack of legal representation at a hearing: 

“There weren’t any legal support. So, everything you do the Home Office … find fault, because there are no legal representations. So maybe the language you use or you couldn’t… quote the law very well or something like that.” 

In a letter to the President of the First-tier Tribunal in April 2024, The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association (ILPA) describes how litigants-in-person those without legal representation, unfamiliar with both tribunal procedures and the law, will face significant difficulties preparing and representing themselves in appeals, leading to a ‘high risk of procedural unfairness and miscarriages of justice.’  

Poor and inaccurate decision-making – if not overturned – can have far-reaching and profound consequences for an individual. ILPA’s letter continues: ‘The consequences of miscarriages of justice in protection claims are of the severest kind: refoulement, which may endanger their lives.’  

People with ‘failed’ asylum claims face homelessness 

A person whose appeal on a negative asylum decision is rejected or who fails to lodge an appeal in time is considered to be ‘appeal rights exhausted’ (ARE) by the Home Office. Based on the most recent statistics, we can predict that tens of thousands of people currently in the asylum appeals backlog may find themselves in this position soon.  

As we explored in ‘Refused?’, people refused asylum who are ‘appeal rights exhausted’ frequently experience issues accessing statutory and voluntary support. 

Whilst those granted refugee status are given 28 days (temporarily extended to 56 days) after receiving a decision on their asylum claim before their asylum support and accommodation is stopped (commonly known as the ‘move-on period’), people refused asylum are evicted after only 21 days. 

Unlike other public authorities such as probation services and hospitals, accommodation providers contracted by the Home Office to deliver asylum housing have no legal duty to refer service users who are at risk of homelessness to Local Authority homelessness teams.  

“21 days. They evict you. You become homeless. And that is another thing. Its most scary thing to be homeless. And I never imagined to get homeless.”  

As a result, many participants described a feeling of total abandonment after receiving a negative decision, leaving their accommodation without any support or guidance about services that can help them. 

“It’s very hard, because Home Office they don’t care. Once they reject you they don’t care, they don’t bother how you live where you eat, no support. Nothing.” 

Barred from accessing housing and homelessness assistance due to the no recourse to public funds (NRPF) condition, many people we spoke to had been pushed into precarious and dangerous living arrangements – including rough sleeping and sofa surfing – after being evicted from Home Office accommodation

The importance of accessing support 

Even if someone is told they are ‘appeal rights exhausted’ (ARE), they may in fact have several options for pursuing their claim further – for example through an Upper Tribunal appeal, a judicial review into the way their case was handled, or more commonly, via a ‘fresh’ asylum claim (aka ‘further submissions’).    

Between 2019 and 2023, 14,378 people previously refused asylum were granted leave to remain following further submissions; and according to our most recent data, in 2023-24 NACCOM members helped 236 people they were accommodating to submit a fresh claim.  

However, several participants we spoke to said that at the point of being refused asylum, they were not aware of the support offered by charities such as those in the NACCOM network. Others described how feelings of alienation, dehumanisation, and isolation combined with a fear of immigration enforcement had prevented them from seeking help earlier.  

For these reasons, it is not uncommon for people to spend months, and sometimes years, in extremely vulnerable situations before eventually accessing the support needed to move out of homelessness – during which they remain at risk of detention and removal from the UK. 

The impacts of immigration enforcement  

In February 2025, the Government announced that it had removed nearly 19,000 failed asylum seekers, foreign criminals, and other immigration offenders since the July 2024 election. This was part of a major escalation in immigration enforcement by the Home Office, fulfilling the Labour government’s promise to increase forced returns to their highest levels since 2018. However, concerns have been raised about the risks associated with this approach.  

Spikes in immigration enforcement create a climate of fear which pushes people away from accessing the support they need to build stable and fulfilling lives in the UK. We saw during the attempted Rwanda removals in 2024, when some services in our network reported people, including those refused asylum, disengaging from their support.  

For those who are detained, but not eventually removed, the experience of detention itself can be highly traumatic and cause lasting harm. Most people who are detained are eventually released back into the community, but often without stable accommodation. Detention can significantly disrupt lives, leaving people at risk of homelessness and forcing them to rebuild both their support networks, and their futures, once again. 

Falling through the cracks 

In December 2024, the Home Office announced an interim extension of the move-on period to 56 days following a positive decision, set to remain in place until June 2025. We heralded this as a welcome change. 

However, there are glaring gaps in support for those refused asylum and people whose claims are withdrawn, who still have just 21 days to move on from asylum support. With the asylum appeals backlog at record levels, a rise in refusals reflected in the latest statistics, and a continued decline in the asylum grant rate, people are falling through the cracks of current policy. Urgent action is needed to prevent another homelessness crisis.  

Change is possible

The Government should urgently: 

Establish a move-on process that genuinely supports everyone leaving the asylum system, by: 

  • Making the 56-day move-on period a permanent feature of the asylum system, for all people leaving asylum accommodation. 
  • Expanding the Homelessness Reduction Act’s Duty to Refer to include the Home Office. 
  • Working with local authorities, migrant sector and homelessness sector providers to develop a co-ordinated and integrated move-on process that looks to prevent homelessness wherever possible. 

Ensure a fair and just system for people seeking asylum, by: 

  • Providing accessible, timely information to help people understand the asylum system at the point at which they claim asylum, and at every stage of the process, to ensure that people are aware of the options available to them as they move through the system, including appeal rights and other legal routes. 
  • Properly resourcing the immigration advice sector to ensure everyone claiming asylum has access to good quality legal advice and representation and can uphold their rights and access justice. 
  • Ensuring that the Home Office has sufficient decision-making capabilities with staff that are properly trained and supported to make asylum decisions, with a focus on quality rather the speed.  
  • Introducing greater safeguards for unrepresented applicants and appellants. 

Recognise and address the impact that restrictions on public funds have on homelessness, by: 

  • Reviewing and monitoring all immigration-based restrictions on public funds to mitigate their role in driving homelessness 
  • Clarifying the legal powers and expectations on local authorities to accommodate and support migrants with restricted eligibility to public funds 
  • Ensuring sufficient funding from central Government to allow local authorities to ensure a minimum level of suitable accommodation provision, regardless of immigration status. 

See ‘Refused: Experiences following a negative asylum decision’ (2023), for further recommendations of how to prevent and relieve homelessness amongst people leaving the asylum system, and our new policy briefing ‘Vital solutions to ending migrant homelessness’ (2024), jointly published with Homeless Link, for a series of changes urgently required to ensure that the immigration system as a whole no longer drives homelessness and destitution.