{"id":555,"date":"2026-07-24T14:05:12","date_gmt":"2026-07-24T13:05:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/housing-rights.info\/news\/?p=555"},"modified":"2026-07-30T13:55:48","modified_gmt":"2026-07-30T12:55:48","slug":"barriers-to-homelessness-support-for-newly-recognised-refugees","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/housing-rights.info\/news\/barriers-to-homelessness-support-for-newly-recognised-refugees\/","title":{"rendered":"Barriers to homelessness support for newly recognised refugees\u00a0"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

From\u00a0Advicenow<\/a>,\u00a0Dragica\u00a0Felja\u00a0(head of\u00a0education and\u00a0training) and Dr Lauren Cape-Davenhill\u00a0(head of\u00a0Migrants Rights Programmes)\u00a0share insight into\u00a0a new report\u00a0on\u00a0how gatekeeping is\u00a0preventing refugees from accessing the\u00a0support\u00a0they may\u00a0have a right\u00a0to.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since 2023, the number of newly recognised refugees evicted from asylum accommodation into homelessness has risen sharply. Advicenow\u2019s new re<\/a>search<\/a> provides evidence from frontline organisations of widespread gatekeeping preventing refugees from accessing local authority homelessness assistance to which they may be legally entitled. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u2011only routes were a particular concern, as online systems failed to capture urgent needs or resulted in people being ignored: \u201c<\/em>People are having to put their situation on a chatbot\u2026 and it just disappears.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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 \u201creason to believe\u201d that someone may be homeless, eligible and have a priority need, they should be provided with interim accommodation while the council conducts further enquiries. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Despite this, evidence shows councils imposing unlawful requirements for extensive documentation before agreeing to assess someone\u2019s situation. As one practitioner put it: \u201cThey often say, go away and fill out this massive form and provide all this documentation\u2026 Before that, we can\u2019t do anything.\u201d For refugees, who may lack documentation, these requirements can be impossible to meet. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Concerns also emerged about local authorities setting high thresholds when deciding whether to provide interim accommodation or accept a long\u2011term housing duty. Practitioners described cases where even clients with well\u2011documented 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.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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 \u201cchasing and chasing for the PHP\u201d without success.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Concerns extended to the suitability of accommodation offered. Practitioners highlighted cases where refugees were offered unsafe or unsuitable temporary and long\u2011term accommodation. One example involved hostel\u2011style accommodation with a cockroach infestation and high levels of ASB.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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: \u201cIf I can\u2019t get legal support, I can say it as many times as I want, and the council won\u2019t change their mind.\u201d This leaves frontline organisations trying to navigate unlawful decisions without the necessary legal support.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Andy Burnham\u2019s 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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n