Home Office Helpline for Asylum Seekers Fails to Meet Targets

(UNITED KINGDOM) A Home Office-backed helpline for asylum seekers has repeatedly failed to meet performance targets, according to recent parliamentary scrutiny that also condemns wider failings in asylum accommodation and safeguarding. In a report published in October 2025, the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee said,

“The Home Office has presided over a failing asylum accommodation system that has cost taxpayers billions of pounds. Its response to increasing demand has been rushed and chaotic, and the department has neglected the day-to-day management of these contracts,”

a statement by Dame Karen Bradley MP, Chair of the Committee.

The Committee’s findings point to deep problems across support services for asylum seekers, including helplines, which it said have not met contractual or statutory standards for accessibility and quality. The report highlights

“significant safeguarding failings in asylum accommodation,”

and adds that

“the response to safeguarding concerns is inconsistent and often inadequate, leaving vulnerable people at risk of harm.”

Lawmakers also found that

“performance on safeguarding is not measured and failure to meet these requirements does not lead to financial penalties for providers,”

underscoring what they describe as a lack of accountability in both contract design and oversight.

The criticism lands amid record spending and heavy reliance on hotel accommodation. As of March 2025, the Committee said 106,771 individuals were in receipt of asylum support, with about 32,300 people—roughly 30%—housed in hotels. The Home Office spent £2.1 billion on hotels in 2024-25 out of a total £4.0 billion on asylum support, with the average hotel cost put at £144 per person per night. The Committee’s assessment is that costs have ballooned while performance has not kept pace, and that key parts of the support system—such as the helpline—have failed to meet basic expectations set by contracts and statutory duties.

Dame Karen Bradley, who leads the cross-party committee, said the department must move quickly to reassert control over spending and standards.

“The Government needs to get a grip on the asylum accommodation system in order to bring costs down and hold providers to account for poor performance,”

she said. The Committee also concluded that

“The Home Office has not proved able to develop a long-term strategy for the delivery of asylum accommodation. It has instead focused on short-term, reactive responses.”

That assessment reflects a central theme of the inquiry: that stop-gap contracts and hurried operational fixes have become the norm, leaving vulnerable people exposed and taxpayers footing ever higher bills.

The report details the human consequences of these systemic gaps. It says

“too many asylum seekers continue to be placed in accommodation that is inadequate or deeply unsuitable,”

and points to

“vulnerable people”

being at risk due to inconsistent support and poor-quality housing. Although the document draws on evidence from charities, local authorities, and service users, it stresses that the helpline and other frontline services have not provided reliable access or timely responses, particularly when safeguarding concerns are raised. In the Committee’s view, these failures are not isolated but part of a pattern that has developed as demand rose and oversight did not keep pace.

Members of the Committee said they were

“deeply concerned by the volume of evidence indicating significant safeguarding failings in asylum accommodation,”

and warned that

“the Home Office does not currently have adequate understanding and oversight of vulnerabilities and potential safeguarding issues among asylum seekers it accommodates.”

Those deficits, they argue, are visible in the helpline’s performance as well as in how providers respond to alerts about safety risks, exploitation, or health needs. The report states plainly that the way safeguarding is monitored is not up to the mark, and that the absence of penalties has allowed underperformance to persist.

Contracting is at the heart of the Committee’s critique. The report describes the department’s approach as

“chaotic,”

and says

“flawed contract design and poor delivery”

have left it

“unable to cope with demand for accommodation.”

Providers, it adds, have been able to

“reap greater profits by prioritising the use of hotels over procuring other, more suitable forms of accommodation,”

without sufficient mechanisms in place to curb excessive profits. This, the Committee says, has created the wrong incentives, pushing more asylum seekers into hotels at higher cost and with weaker safeguards than other types of housing might offer.

The helpline, which is funded by the Home Office but not named in the material reviewed by the Committee, features in these concerns because it is a critical link for people seeking help, reporting problems, or requesting moves for safety or health reasons. The Committee’s account says helpline and related support services

“have not met contractual or statutory targets,”

and that this failure has practical consequences for people living in hotels and other facilities where the report documents uneven standards. In particular, the Committee raises alarms about inconsistent responses to safeguarding calls and gaps in follow-up that leave risks unaddressed.

Lawmakers trace these operational problems to broader strategic issues. They say the asylum system’s reliance on emergency accommodation grew without a matching plan to build capacity, improve data, and ensure providers were held to clear, measurable standards.

“The Home Office has not proved able to develop a long-term strategy for the delivery of asylum accommodation. It has instead focused on short-term, reactive responses,”

the Committee said, echoing frustrations voiced by councils and charities about the steady expansion of hotel use since the start of the spending period. The Committee’s description of

“flawed contract design and poor delivery”

is mirrored in the helpline’s difficulties, where performance has lagged and accountability has been weak.

The report’s figures show how quickly the costs have climbed and how much pressure the system is under. With 106,771 people receiving support in March 2025 and around 32,300 in hotels, the average cost of £144 per person per night translates into very large monthly bills. Over the 2024-25 period, the £2.1 billion spent on hotels formed more than half of the £4.0 billion total for asylum support. The Committee says this imbalance reflects over-reliance on the most expensive form of accommodation, driven by contracts that made it easier and more profitable for providers to expand hotel use than to invest in better-suited options.

Alongside the cost arguments, members stress the consequences for people living in the system. The Committee highlighted

“significant safeguarding failings”

and described a patchwork of standards across different sites, with

“the response to safeguarding concerns”

often

“inconsistent and often inadequate.”

When families or single adults call the helpline to report issues—such as unsafe conditions, harassment, or gaps in medical support—the report says the system does not consistently meet response times, escalate urgent cases, or record outcomes in a way that would allow proper oversight. This is compounded by the finding that

“performance on safeguarding is not measured”

and that there are no automatic

“financial penalties for providers”

when they miss requirements.

The Committee’s account suggests that the Home Office’s central monitoring has not kept up. It says the department

“does not currently have adequate understanding and oversight of vulnerabilities and potential safeguarding issues among asylum seekers it accommodates,”

making it harder to assign the right housing, plan support, or intervene early when problems arise. In that context, the helpline’s underperformance becomes more than a customer-service lapse; it undermines one of the few pathways asylum seekers have to raise problems quickly from inside a large and often overstretched system.

Dame Karen Bradley’s warning that the Government needs to

“get a grip”

reflects frustration that the department is paying more while too many outcomes are falling short.

“The Government needs to get a grip on the asylum accommodation system in order to bring costs down and hold providers to account for poor performance,”

she said, calling for tighter controls and a more strategic approach. The Committee’s language that the response has been

“rushed and chaotic”

points to frequent contract changes, emergency procurements, and short timelines that made it harder to enforce standards on helplines, safeguarding, and accommodation quality.

The allegation that providers could

“reap greater profits by prioritising the use of hotels over procuring other, more suitable forms of accommodation”

underscores the Committee’s concern about incentives built into current agreements. Those concerns feed into the helpline debate because, if accommodation is driven by short-term availability rather than suitability, demand for support rises and safeguarding cases become more complex. Poor recording, slow responses, and inconsistent follow-up, as described in the report, leave asylum seekers waiting longer for help and expose them to

“risk of harm”

when problems are not dealt with promptly.

The Committee’s broad charge is that, at high cost to the public, the system has not delivered safe, suitable accommodation or reliable support channels.

“The Home Office has presided over a failing asylum accommodation system that has cost taxpayers billions of pounds,”

it said, while also concluding that the department

“has not proved able to develop a long-term strategy.”

This critique encompasses the helpline’s failures to meet targets, the absence of measured safeguarding performance, and the lack of consequences for providers who fall short. It also ties those operational failures back to central decision-making, where the focus has been on short-term fixes rather than the stable contracts and data systems needed to track outcomes and enforce standards.

For asylum seekers, the practical implications are immediate: when a helpline does not answer quickly, when calls are not properly logged, or when promised actions do not happen, problems can escalate. The Committee’s references to

“inadequate or deeply unsuitable”

accommodation and

“inconsistent and often inadequate”

responses paint a picture of a system where day-to-day management has not matched the scale of need. The description of

“chaotic”

arrangements and

“poor delivery”

suggests that neither providers nor the department have set up the routines that would make safeguarding effective—clear targets, verified performance data, and escalation routes that trigger action.

The costs, too, shape the political debate. With more than half of the £4.0 billion asylum support budget going to hotel bills in 2024-25, and the hotel line alone at £2.1 billion, the Committee argues that taxpayers are paying more for worse outcomes. The average nightly rate of £144 per person illustrates how quickly the totals rise when thousands of people stay in hotels for months at a time. The Committee’s call to

“bring costs down and hold providers to account”

is effectively a demand to redesign contracts so that providers do not profit from prolonged hotel use and are judged on measurable outcomes, including helpline responsiveness and safeguarding performance.

The Home Affairs Committee’s focus on data and accountability runs through its assessment. By stating that

“performance on safeguarding is not measured,”

it highlights a gap that hinders enforcement and improvement. By noting that missed requirements do not bring

“financial penalties for providers,”

it signals that underperformance has limited consequences. And by stating that

“the Home Office does not currently have adequate understanding and oversight of vulnerabilities and potential safeguarding issues,”

it suggests the department lacks the information needed to direct resources, move people to safer accommodation, or challenge providers effectively.

While the report does not name the helpline provider or set out specific target metrics, it is clear that the line is part of a support network that, in the Committee’s view, has not delivered. The document links helpline performance to wider contract shortcomings, and states that helpline and other support services

“have not met contractual or statutory targets.”

It also anchors helpline criticism to safeguarding, stressing that the quality and speed of responses can determine whether

“vulnerable people”

remain at risk. In practical terms, the Committee is urging the Home Office to set clear standards, measure them, and enforce consequences when those standards are not met.

The department’s latest decisions are not detailed in the Committee’s narrative, but the path forward implied by lawmakers is explicit: reduce reliance on hotels, renegotiate contracts to prioritise suitable accommodation, and fix the data and oversight gaps that allow problems to persist. That includes a helpline that can answer calls, record issues accurately, and escalate safeguarding concerns without delay. As the report puts it, the current approach has been

“short-term, reactive,”

and the cost of that approach is measured not just in billions of pounds but in the safety and stability of people who rely on the system.

For official data on asylum support and caseloads, the government publishes regular statistical releases; the latest series is available on the Home Office immigration statistics page.