Living next to asylum seeker HMO, ask me anything

[JapanesePotWeed]

As the title says. I live in a Victorian mid-terrace, wall-to-wall, garden-to-garden with an asylum seeker dispersal HMO. They were moved in nearly two years ago, replacing a multi-generation family that were living there before.
There is another HMO directly opposite my house, where asylum seekers get rooms once they are approved to remain but don't have an income to support themselves.

Not AIBU but more like AMA. I'm wondering what people would ask me if they really could ask anything. Does anyone actually want to know what it is like? I hear a lot of political point scoring in the media regarding this topic but no one actually talks to people like me!

This is a valid concern. It is important to note that there have been bad decisions in both directions.

However the Home Office has fully accepted most of the recommendations for improvements in the UN report and partially accepted the others.

How do you know the poster has done nothing? Or are you deliberately pretending that you think the only way someone can support asylum seekers is by personally housing them?

It's such a stupid argument that I see trotted out on these boards all the time. People pay taxes, and vote, and support organisations that are well equipped to provide the support..

I bet you'd claim that you support our good ol' homegrown British pensioners, but by your own logic you've done nothing about them unless you've converted your house into a nursing home.

I expect this figure relates to initial applications only. Initial applications need to be added to claims decided on appeal. The 'success' rate is much higher than 40% and it's disingenuous to only quote figures for initial applications when we know so many asylum claims are granted on appeal.

Exactly, and if we have an acceptance rate that's approx double the rate of France (initial applications granted plus those granted on appeal) then guess what? The asylum seekers will come, they're not stupid.

Macron has told us this already.

Well then unsuccessful claims are rarely deported - hence the 4% of small boat arrivals being removed detailed above.

Accepted or denied the vast majority of arrivals are going nowhere.

The proportion of successful appeals has not fallen as sharply, but it has also fallen and continues to fall.

I am fine with asylum seekers. I don’t feel a compulsion to live near them, any more than I feel a compulsion to live near football players, musicians, doctors, chefs or Swedish people.

I haven’t offered members of any of these groups a free room either.

You said you'd be happy if 'a few' asylum seekers were housed in your nice middle class area. But places like Bolton, Burnley Birmingham and Glasgow are dealing with a lot more than 'a few' and poorer people in poorer neighbourhoods are less insulated from the problems all this brings.

I understand that it's well-meaning but it can come over as quite complacent.

I presume your “friend” didn’t buy this house to rent to refugees next door or even on the same street as her own home? Just inflicted it on another (no doubt poorer) street instead while raking in the cash.

It’s awful that exploitative landlords are buying up homes to house vulnerable people without adequate support and charging councils a fortune. Like someone earlier said, councils are paying these people thousands of pounds to rent properties they once owned themselves - it’s madness.

And the concentration of asylum seekers is wrong. They should be properly dispersed.

I think she initially rented to students as it's mostly student lets down there.
Why do you think it's being inflicted on people? They haven't caused any trouble to the neighbours

Living next to an HMO always has its downsides, but at least this one sounds to be a very interesting and culturally enriching experience ☺️.

Yes, another group of people raking it in, profiteering from the asylum racket while poorer people in poorer neighbourhoods pay the price.

The opposition to this craziness is growing. That's why we're seeing a clamp down on free speech and space in our prisons being freed up for future protesters.

The only reason we're hearing opposition now is because it's little Tobias and Tabitha in the leafy suburbs having to put up with whatever the fuck this is. Now there aren't many working class people left to join you in opposing it, why? Because they simply haven't been born. Their would-be parents have been forced to rent for life because the price of both rent and housing and skyrocketed due to the unnaturally rising population. Their wages undermined by cheap imported labour. The quality of everything is declining but the price is rising. Why? Because these foreigners have no idea what rights are, will put up with everything being shit while being financially backed by the government for life. Welcome to the future none of us voted for, just a few twonks ushered it in because they're scared to be 'wasist'.

Yes, that's why I'd like to see all the HMOs, hotels and barracks for asylum seekers put in the leafy suburbs and the quaint English villages. Because that's the only way the asylum racket will come to an end.

As long as it's overwhelmingly working class people who bear the brunt, little will change. The government are thinking ahead, clamping down on free speech and preparing space for protesters who they are fast-tracking into prison.

Up to now it has been about cost. Leafy suburbs cost more in rent.

As I said above, the cap on rental costs did not generally meet the cost of local rents. The odd property can be found (large houses for multiple families or altruistic landlords who want to help).

Certainly, other than not taking council/social housing for safety/attitude reasons, the restrictions are cost based.

For dispersal, which I am in favour of in communities, the Home Office will have to increase what they pay in rents and more importantly the tax payer accepts the cost.

Exactly, that's why the vast majority of asylum seekers and refugees will continue to be placed in poorer neighbourhoods because of the cost.

That's why the debate is so toxic. Because the open borders brigade tend to live in the better off neighbourhoods where asylum seekers and refugees won't be placed because of the cost. So they can carry on virtue signalling while condemning the 'ghastly gammons' who are protesting.

And so it continues.

I was just wondering if the same people wanting to move asylum seekers to more expensive housing would be happy with the extra cost to the public purse. I recall a news story where asylum seekers were moved to houses on a new build estate in a naice area and it led to lots of news stories about 'boat people' being 'given' brand new houses (lots of people believed they were actually given them as permanent free homes) and the reaction was such that the families were terrified and extra security had to be put in, as the street was being posted online and there were threats for people to drive them out of the homes.
I do know a fair few accommodations in suburbs but they're suburbs of a multi cultural northern town so not actually very expensive. I can only imagine how people would react if it was perceived they were being moved to desirable areas though, ie places where those on benefits or low incomes can't afford to live.

Why do you assume that the only people who support refugees live in expensive neighbourhoods?

What we need is offshore processing and a massive reduction in the pull factors. These are things that the government could do now within the legislation that exists.

Because I know these people. They live in the better off neighbourhoods in the city I live in. They actually have very little experience of multiculturalism and immigration. Their interest is in virtue signalling.

They are often well- meaning but they don't actually know what they're talking about.

We need to shut down this racket. Offshore processing and a massive reduction in the pull factors would go a long way to solving the problem.

Or we could carry on as we are. After all, the government are clearing space to fast track any protesters into prison which I'm sure you would approve of, given that you seem to think anyone objecting to asylum seeker accommodation is very stupid.

People in your immediate circle is a pretty small sample size, and a pretty big stereotype. I support fair process for asylum seekers (especially ones where our country bears a lot of the responsibilities for why they're having to flee) and I'm in a two bed terrace in a northern town, after living in many bedsits/house shares in cities. I know plenty of people who are similar.

I have family who live on council estates where the overall view would be against asylum seekers being housed because those residents get a shit deal from our govt and would assume the newcomers are being given something at a cost to them. But when there are individuals living in the community they've actually been generally well supported, because people who are skint are in my experience often more generous, because they know what it's like to go without.

A great question. I have also been wondering why @5MinuteArgument thinks this.

I would support the extra expenses associated with dispersal of asylum claimants to middle class (and wealthier) areas.

AI, culling HMG data, informs me that as of June 2026 the backlog of asylum claims is under 41,000. Also there were about 90,000 outstanding appeals. Thus about 130,000 people should be eligible for the housing under consideration. This is a solvable problem, though it may take a bit of money.