councils' desperation to house people, if it means struggling families are left paying the price
Across England, a quiet displacement has been unfolding: London councils, pressed by an acute housing shortage and rising costs, have been sending homeless families — many of them fleeing violence — hundreds of miles from their communities, their support networks, and in some cases, their safety. The numbers have doubled in two years, and the human cost has fallen hardest on those least able to bear it. Now, government ministers are weighing whether to restrict or ban the practice, a reckoning that asks what obligations a society holds toward its most vulnerable when the systems meant to protect them begin to cause harm.
- The number of homeless families relocated out of London has doubled in just two years, reaching 1,300 annual placements — and the true figure is likely higher, since some councils keep no central records.
- Domestic abuse survivors are being offered a choice that is no choice at all: accept housing far from London in unsuitable conditions, or remain without shelter — and some have returned to their abusers rather than accept either option.
- Private intermediary companies are profiting from the crisis, with one firm alone receiving around £2 million from just two councils, while London boroughs have spent over £140 million acquiring properties in some of England's poorest regions.
- Multiple London councils have been found by the high court to have routinely broken the law, ignoring both legal requirements to notify receiving authorities and government guidance that cost alone must never drive out-of-area placements.
- Parliamentary pressure is mounting, with the housing select committee chair and local MPs calling for strict distance limits and a radical tightening of the law.
- The homelessness minister has acknowledged the practice is a 'real worry' and signalled the government is prepared to act following an ongoing review, though any reform is still taking shape.
London's housing crisis has quietly produced a system of displacement — one in which the most vulnerable residents are being sent hundreds of miles from everything familiar to them. Government ministers are now considering whether to ban the practice, a signal of how seriously the situation has deteriorated.
The scale has grown sharply. In the year to March 2023, London councils relocated 670 homeless families elsewhere in England. Two years on, that figure had reached 1,300 — and is likely an undercount, since several councils hold no centralised records. Some families are placed over 200 miles away, in some of England's poorest areas. London boroughs have spent more than £140 million acquiring properties in cities like Liverpool and Coventry, often through intermediary companies that profit from the arrangements. One firm received around £2 million from just two councils to facilitate these moves.
The human cost falls most heavily on domestic abuse survivors. Women have been offered housing surrounded by aggressive neighbours, in places where the nearest mosque is ninety minutes away, or in conditions so unsafe that some have fled back to their abusers. Charities report that cultural, religious, and safety needs are routinely ignored. The choice presented — accept unsuitable housing far from London, or sleep rough — is, in practice, no choice at all.
The legal framework is being openly disregarded. Councils are required to house people within their own borough where reasonably practical, and to notify receiving authorities when placing people elsewhere. Government guidance is explicit that cost alone must never drive these decisions. Yet multiple councils have been found by the high court to have violated these rules as a matter of routine.
Following the Guardian's investigation, the chair of the Commons housing select committee called for a firm distance limit on all out-of-area placements. The MP for Hartlepool warned the policy was 'ripping at the social fabric' of his town. The homelessness minister acknowledged the practice was a 'real worry' and said the government was prepared to act following a review currently underway, suggesting existing guidance had clearly failed.
Any reform would likely preserve exceptions for those who genuinely need to leave London — people fleeing danger, for instance. The bitter irony of the current system is that it has inverted this logic entirely, forcing people already in danger into situations they did not choose and cannot safely navigate.
The housing crisis in London has created a system where the most vulnerable people are being sent hundreds of miles away from everything they know. Government ministers are now considering whether to ban the practice altogether—a sign of how far the problem has spiraled.
The numbers tell part of the story. In the year ending March 2023, London councils relocated 670 homeless families to other parts of England. Two years later, that figure had doubled to 1,300. The true number is likely higher, since several councils don't maintain centralized records. Some families are being placed more than 200 miles from the capital, in some of the poorest regions of the country. London councils have spent more than £140 million buying properties in places like Liverpool and Coventry, often working through intermediary companies that profit from the arrangement. One firm, Reloc8, has received about £2 million from just two councils—Croydon and Enfield—to facilitate these moves.
What makes this practice particularly troubling is who bears the cost. Domestic abuse survivors are being offered a choice that isn't really a choice: accept housing far from London, or sleep rough. Some women have refused the offer and stayed in emergency refuges instead. Others have accepted placements so unsuitable—surrounded by aggressive men, in villages where the nearest mosque is ninety minutes away by bus—that they've fled back to their abusers. One woman placed 200 miles from London in a property surrounded by drunk and aggressive neighbors eventually ran away in fear. Charities report that survivors are being denied consideration of their cultural and religious needs, their safety concerns, and their access to support networks.
The practice has grown because London councils face an impossible situation. They are legally required to house homeless people, but the capital's housing shortage makes that obligation increasingly expensive. The law states that councils must find accommodation "so far as reasonably practical" within their own borough, and if they place someone outside their area, they must notify the receiving authority. But several London councils have been found by the high court to have violated this requirement, routinely flouting the law to cut costs. Government guidance explicitly states that out-of-area placements should never be based on cost alone. That guidance is being ignored.
After the Guardian's investigation, Florence Eshalomi, chair of the Commons housing select committee, called on ministers to "seriously examine introducing a limit on the distance of all out-of-area placements." Jonathan Brash, the Labour MP for Hartlepool in County Durham, said the policy was "ripping at the social fabric" of his town and increasing local tension. He called for the law to be "radically tightened." Alison McGovern, the homelessness minister, acknowledged the practice was a "real worry" and said the government was prepared to "clamp down on the worst form of it" following a review currently underway. She suggested ministers would consider going further than existing guidance because "something is clearly not working here."
Any ban would likely include exceptions for people who genuinely need to leave London—those fleeing abuse or other threats, for instance. But the current system has inverted that logic. Instead of helping people escape danger, it's forcing people in danger to choose between homelessness and unsuitable housing far from support. Sophie Earnshaw, a housing lawyer at Shelter, put it plainly: "We cannot allow private companies to cash in on the housing emergency, and councils' desperation to house people, if it means struggling families are left paying the price." The question now is whether ministers will act before more vulnerable people are sent hundreds of miles into situations they never chose.
Notable Quotes
The practice is a 'real worry' and the government is prepared to 'clamp down on the worst form of it' after a review currently underway— Alison McGovern, homelessness minister
It is not fair, it is not sustainable, and it is time it stopped— Jonathan Brash, Labour MP for Hartlepool
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why would a council send someone 200 miles away? That seems extreme.
Cost. A flat in London might rent for £1,500 a month. The same council can buy a property outright in the north for a fraction of that. When you're facing thousands of homeless people and a legal obligation to house them, the math becomes tempting.
But there's a law against that, isn't there?
There is. The law says councils must house people locally "so far as reasonably practical," and cost alone shouldn't determine placement. But several councils have been found by the high court to have broken that law anyway. The penalties haven't been severe enough to stop the practice.
What happens to the people who get sent away?
Some end up in genuinely unsuitable situations. A domestic abuse survivor placed 200 miles away in a property surrounded by aggressive men eventually fled. Others refuse the offer and stay in emergency refuges instead, which means fewer beds for other people in crisis. One woman was sent to a village where the nearest mosque was an hour and a half away by bus. These aren't just inconveniences—they're barriers to safety and belonging.
Why would a woman fleeing abuse go back to her abuser rather than move?
Because moving 200 miles away means losing her job, her support network, her community, her children's school. It means isolation in a place where she has no one. For some, that feels more dangerous than the familiar danger she knows.
So the government is finally stepping in?
They're considering it. Ministers say they're worried about the practice and willing to tighten the rules. But there's a real tension here: if you ban long-distance placements, where do all these people go? London's housing crisis doesn't disappear. You're just forcing councils to find another solution.