Clearsprings Ready Homes, the company at the center of the United Kingdom’s asylum accommodation system, has come under intense scrutiny following revelations of soaring profits and widespread complaints about the living conditions faced by thousands of asylum seekers. According to a joint investigation by the BBC and The Sun, the Essex-based firm, headed by 58-year-old Graham King, has amassed nearly £187 million in profits since 2019—an eye-watering sum that has raised eyebrows across the political spectrum and among advocates for migrant welfare.
Clearsprings is one of three private companies with ten-year contracts from the UK Home Office to provide accommodation for asylum seekers, with its agreement stretching until 2029. The company oversees housing for approximately 30,000 asylum seekers in southern England, London, and Wales, with about half of those individuals placed in hotels through subcontracted arrangements. The total cost of these contracts has ballooned since their inception, surging from £4.5 billion to a staggering £15 billion, as reported by the BBC. Clearsprings alone is projected to receive £7 billion under the current terms.
Amid this backdrop of escalating expenditure, the experiences of those living in Clearsprings-managed accommodations paint a starkly different picture. Multiple asylum seekers have described conditions in the hotels as dire, citing issues such as inadequate nutrition, poor hygiene, and the rationing of basic necessities like period products and toilet paper. One mother from South America, who has spent two years living in a hotel with her young daughter, told the BBC that the facilities were “terrible,” explaining that they were dirty, broken, and fundamentally unfit for habitation.
These complaints are not isolated. Migrant charities have penned open letters accusing Clearsprings of “cashing in” on the government’s backlog of asylum seekers, while residents themselves have lamented the “miserable” conditions, describing the food as “inedible” and the atmosphere as demoralizing. The Financial Times reported that the company’s pre-tax profits jumped 60% to £119 million in its most recent financial year ending January 2025, a figure that has left even seasoned government officials “shocked.”
Maia Kirby from Good Jobs First, a watchdog group monitoring government contracts, didn’t mince words in her criticism of the company’s business model. Speaking to the BBC, she asserted, “Clearsprings pays as little as possible to suppliers and takes as much as they can in profits.” This sentiment has been echoed by Members of Parliament, who have grown increasingly vocal in their concerns about the structure of the contracts and the incentives they create.
MP Paul Kohler was particularly scathing during a recent parliamentary hearing, where he called the scale of Clearsprings’ profits “obscene.” He noted that the contracts are set up so that providers earn significantly more from hotel accommodations—sometimes up to eight times more—than from permanent housing. The company itself acknowledged during the hearing that “operating hotels can be more profitable than providing long-term housing,” and even admitted that “living in hotels was really bad for people.”
Despite these admissions and the mounting criticism, Clearsprings has maintained that it strives to provide “value for money, quality, and transparency,” according to its website. The company has also stated that any profits exceeding a 5% margin will be returned to the Home Office, as stipulated in a deal arranged by a previous government. However, its reported average margin has been 6.9%, suggesting that it is consistently making profits above the agreed threshold. The Home Office has said it expects to recoup any excess profits, but critics remain skeptical about enforcement and oversight.
The controversy comes at a time when the number of asylum seekers in contracted accommodation has more than doubled in recent years, rising from around 47,000 in December 2019 to an expected 110,000 by December 2024. This dramatic increase has put additional pressure on the system and heightened scrutiny of the companies profiting from it. According to The Sun, the three main accommodation providers—including Clearsprings—have collectively made £383 million in profits since 2019, a figure that has only amplified public and political outrage.
Much of the criticism has centered not just on the profits themselves, but on the apparent disconnect between the money being made and the quality of service being provided. While Clearsprings’ founder, Graham King, has become known in the media as the “Asylum King” and reportedly achieved billionaire status thanks to the surge in demand for migrant accommodation, those living in the company’s hotels have seen little improvement in their day-to-day lives. One resident told The Sun that the hotels were “terrible,” echoing widespread reports of “inedible” food and strict rationing of essentials.
Charity representatives and local officials have argued that the government’s decision to outsource asylum accommodation to private firms has led to a system where profit motives can undermine the welfare of vulnerable people. The contracts’ design, which rewards companies more for hotel stays than for long-term housing, has drawn particular ire. “The real issue lies with companies like Clearsprings, which are profiting from the government contracts,” one asylum seeker told the BBC, reflecting a sentiment shared by many housed under the scheme.
In response to the growing controversy, the UK government has begun considering whether to shift oversight of asylum accommodation back to local councils, rather than continuing to rely on outsourced providers. This potential move is seen by some as a way to restore accountability and improve standards, though it is still in the early stages of discussion.
The debate over Clearsprings and its peers is emblematic of broader tensions within the UK’s immigration and asylum system. On one hand, there is a pressing need to house a rapidly growing population of asylum seekers, many of whom have fled conflict or persecution. On the other, there is increasing concern that taxpayer money is being funneled into private hands without sufficient safeguards to ensure humane treatment and value for money.
As the government weighs its next steps, the experiences of those living in Clearsprings’ accommodations—and the company’s remarkable profitability—remain at the forefront of a heated national conversation. Whether the system will be reformed, and how quickly, is a question that continues to hang in the balance.
For now, the story of Clearsprings Ready Homes stands as a powerful case study in the challenges and controversies that arise when public services are outsourced to private enterprise—especially when the stakes are as high as the basic dignity and wellbeing of thousands seeking refuge.
