Barriers to homelessness support for newly recognised refugees 

From Advicenow, Dragica Felja (head of education and training) and Dr Lauren Cape-Davenhill (head of Migrants Rights Programmes) share insight into a new report on how gatekeeping is preventing refugees from accessing the support they may have a right to. 

Since 2023, the number of newly recognised refugees evicted from asylum accommodation into homelessness has risen sharply. Advicenow’s new research provides evidence from frontline organisations of widespread gatekeeping preventing refugees from accessing local authority homelessness assistance to which they may be legally entitled. 

The research findings are based on comments from 127 participants in three housing rights training courses delivered in 2025 and 2026, attended by frontline staff and volunteers from charities, community groups, faith groups and health agencies. Their experiences reveal a pattern of unlawful practices, high thresholds for support and systemic obstacles leaving refugees at risk of prolonged homelessness. 

Frontline organisations report that many refugees struggle to even begin the homelessness application process. They describe councils turning people away at reception without providing support, refusing to act until the point of eviction, or incorrectly advising people that they need to apply to a different local authority. Digital‑only routes were a particular concern, as online systems failed to capture urgent needs or resulted in people being ignored: “People are having to put their situation on a chatbot… and it just disappears.” 

Further obstacles arise when refugees do manage to present their case. Councils are legally obliged to consider a homelessness application if someone is eligible and may be homeless or threatened with homelessness. If there is “reason to believe” that someone may be homeless, eligible and have a priority need, they should be provided with interim accommodation while the council conducts further enquiries. 

Despite this, evidence shows councils imposing unlawful requirements for extensive documentation before agreeing to assess someone’s situation. As one practitioner put it: “They often say, go away and fill out this massive form and provide all this documentation… Before that, we can’t do anything.” For refugees, who may lack documentation, these requirements can be impossible to meet. 

Concerns also emerged about local authorities setting high thresholds when deciding whether to provide interim accommodation or accept a long‑term housing duty. Practitioners described cases where even clients with well‑documented serious medical conditions were not recognised as vulnerable. In some areas, frontline workers reported what appeared to be an unlawful blanket approach to single male refugees, who were routinely dismissed as not in priority need without any meaningful attempts to find out more about their situation.  

Documentation failures were another key theme. Frontline organisations reported written decisions and Personal Housing Plans (PHPs) often not being provided, despite legal requirements. Without these documents, refugees cannot understand decisions, challenge them, or plan next steps. One worker described “chasing and chasing for the PHP” without success.  

Concerns extended to the suitability of accommodation offered. Practitioners highlighted cases where refugees were offered unsafe or unsuitable temporary and long‑term accommodation. One example involved hostel‑style accommodation with a cockroach infestation and high levels of ASB.  

A recurring theme was that legal challenge was often the only way to stop gatekeeping. Yet participants stressed that, in practice, lack of legal aid capacity means many refugees are unable to access representation. As one worker explained: “If I can’t get legal support, I can say it as many times as I want, and the council won’t change their mind.” This leaves frontline organisations trying to navigate unlawful decisions without the necessary legal support.  

The report indicates that gatekeeping in homelessness services is systemic. Whilst gatekeeping should be understood in the context of the housing crisis, austerity and cuts to council budgets, this cannot justify unlawful gatekeeping. If vulnerable people are unable to get support from local authorities to which they may legally be entitled, it seems inevitable that they are more likely to become or remain homeless, with a direct impact on the numbers of people rough sleeping. 

Andy Burnham’s first pledge as prime minister was to end rough sleeping in England. Achieving this will require serious engagement with refugee homelessness, given people leaving the asylum system are the second biggest group of people sleeping rough after leaving a public institution. It will also require action to prevent gatekeeping of homelessness assistance, which plays a crucial role in keeping people off the streets. 

• If you work or volunteer in a frontline organisation and often encounter gatekeeping of homelessness assistance for refugees or other migrant communities, we’d welcome hearing from you — please contact Lauren at lauren.capedavenhill@advicenow.org.uk