Are HMO Properties Only For Asylum Seekers? – A Fact Check
September 3, 2026
There is a particularly damaging rumour going around at the moment about HMO properties, largely driven by social media posts, local Facebook groups and a considerable amount of confusion around the Government’s plans for asylum accommodation. Somehow, the term “HMO” has started to become associated almost exclusively with housing asylum seekers, with some people now appearing to believe that HMOs are a relatively new form of housing created for that purpose.
That is categorically false.
An HMO simply means a House in Multiple Occupation. It describes how a property is occupied, not the type of person living inside it. Shared houses, lodging houses, boarding houses and similar forms of accommodation have existed for centuries, while houses in multiple occupation have been specifically recognised and regulated within British housing legislation for more than 60 years.
The current asylum accommodation debate has unfortunately blurred two very different areas of housing together. Professional-let HMO properties operating within the normal private rented sector are not the same thing as Home Office-contracted HMO accommodation used for asylum placements.
That distinction needs to be understood before the entire HMO sector gets unfairly tarnished with the same brush.
HMO properties existed long before the current asylum debate
There is nothing new about people renting individual rooms within larger houses.
Long before anyone used the modern phrase “professional HMO”, Britain had lodging houses, boarding houses, bedsits and shared accommodation occupied by unrelated people. The legislation surrounding HMOs has developed considerably over the decades, but the basic principle of several unrelated people living within one larger property is certainly not something created by the current Government.
Houses in multiple occupation were specifically dealt with in the Housing Act 1961, including provisions covering overcrowding, management standards and the registration of certain properties. The Housing Act 1985 later contained extensive provisions relating to HMOs, with the regulatory framework being developed considerably further through the Housing Act 2004 and subsequent licensing regulations.
Professional HMOs therefore existed long before the present discussion around asylum hotels and temporary accommodation.
The idea that somebody recently invented HMOs because the Government needed somewhere else to house asylum seekers simply does not stand up against the history of the sector.
Where the current confusion has come from
The confusion appears to have grown considerably as the Government has discussed reducing its reliance on hotels for asylum accommodation and using more temporary and dispersal accommodation instead.
Unfortunately, whenever the phrase “HMO properties” appears within those discussions, a lot of people seem to interpret it as meaning HMOs generally.
It does not.
The HMO properties being used within the asylum accommodation system are specific properties procured and managed through Government-contracted accommodation arrangements. They form part of the Home Office asylum support system and can include shared properties that legally qualify as HMOs because several unrelated households occupy the same building.
They are not ordinary professional-let HMOs suddenly being converted into some national asylum housing programme.
This is where a much clearer distinction needs to be made between Home Office-contracted or temporary accommodation HMOs and professional-let HMOs operating within the normal private rental market.
Both properties may technically satisfy the definition of a House in Multiple Occupation. Commercially, operationally and in terms of who occupies them, however, they are completely different.
The HMOs being discussed for asylum accommodation are not professional-let HMOs
When people hear that asylum seekers may be housed in “HMO properties”, they can quite reasonably assume that the Government is talking about the same type of HMO that exists on virtually every professional rental market across Britain.
That is where the misunderstanding begins.
The asylum accommodation system uses contracted accommodation providers that procure and manage properties specifically for people receiving asylum support. Some of those properties are shared houses and therefore fall within the legal definition of an HMO.
For practical purposes, these are social or temporary accommodation-style HMOs operating within a Government-funded placement system, not professional-let HMOs marketed to working private tenants.
A professional HMO operates very differently.
The tenant generally finds the property through the ordinary rental market, chooses to rent a room, enters into the relevant tenancy arrangement and pays rent in the normal way. The landlord or managing agent is providing accommodation to the open private rental market rather than receiving placements through a Government asylum accommodation contract.
That is the HMO market we have operated within for over 34 years.
We do not have Home Office asylum accommodation contracts attached to the HMO properties we manage. Our HMO properties have always been developed for professional tenants.
There should be no confusion between the two.
We have housed professional tenants for over 34 years
Foot Forward Property Investments has developed and managed HMO properties for more than 34 years, so we have watched the market change enormously during that period.
Our tenants have included police staff, HGV drivers, logistics and supply-chain workers, doctors, scientists, professionals relocating for employment and even rugby teams.
These are people who have chosen to live within shared accommodation because it suits their circumstances.
Some are moving into an area for a new job and do not immediately want to commit to renting an entire house. Others might be saving towards buying their own property. Some work on contracts and value the flexibility of renting a high-quality ensuite room rather than taking on the cost and responsibility of an entire apartment.
That has been the professional HMO market for decades.
It bears very little resemblance to a property being procured by a large accommodation provider under a Government-funded asylum accommodation contract.
Using the same three letters to describe both buildings does not suddenly make the two housing models interchangeable.
Why professional tenants choose HMO accommodation
There is a very practical reason professional HMOs remain popular.
Take somebody moving from Birmingham to Doncaster for work. Renting an entire apartment means paying the monthly rent, council tax, gas, electricity, water, broadband and potentially buying furniture. They may also need to commit considerably more money upfront before they have even settled into their new job.
A good professional HMO provides an alternative.
The tenant can rent a furnished bedroom, often with their own ensuite bathroom, while sharing a properly designed kitchen and communal area with other professionals. Utilities and broadband are commonly incorporated into the monthly rent, which gives the tenant a much clearer idea of what their accommodation is going to cost each month.
For somebody who does not need an entire house to themselves, that can make considerably more sense.
Professional HMOs therefore serve a genuine section of the housing market that exists completely independently of Government asylum policy.
HMO describes how a property is occupied
One of the easiest ways to stop the confusion is to understand what the letters actually mean.
HMO means House in Multiple Occupation.
It does not mean asylum accommodation.
It does not mean social housing.
It does not mean professional housing either.
The term describes the occupation of the property.
A house occupied by five nurses could be an HMO. A property occupied by engineers could be an HMO. Five logistics workers renting separate rooms could be living in an HMO. A Government-contracted temporary accommodation property occupied by unrelated asylum seekers could also qualify as an HMO.
The tenant group is what changes.
The basic property classification does not.
This is precisely why saying “asylum seekers are being housed in HMOs” without any explanation causes so much unnecessary confusion. A reader can easily interpret that as meaning the entire HMO sector is connected to asylum accommodation when it plainly is not.
A much more accurate description would be that some properties within the Government’s temporary and dispersal accommodation system are shared properties which legally qualify as HMOs.
That is very different from saying HMOs generally are being used for asylum seekers.
Professional HMOs and temporary accommodation HMOs are different markets
The distinction becomes even clearer when you look at how each property actually operates.
A professional-let HMO is generally part of the ordinary private rented sector. The landlord or managing agent markets rooms to private tenants, carries out referencing, manages the tenancy and collects the rent.
There is no Government body deciding who should occupy the property.
Home Office-contracted asylum accommodation works through an entirely different system. Accommodation providers operating under Government contracts procure and manage properties to accommodate people receiving asylum support. The occupants are placed within those properties through the asylum accommodation system rather than simply finding a room advertised within the normal professional rental market.
Yes, both buildings can legally be HMOs.
A taxi and a family car can also be exactly the same make and model. What matters is how they are being operated.
Professional HMO landlords across Britain should not suddenly find their properties associated with asylum accommodation simply because another property somewhere else happens to have the same legal housing classification.
HMOs are highly regulated properties
Another problem created by the current debate is the assumption that HMO automatically means a badly maintained house packed with people.
There are undoubtedly poor landlords within the sector, just as poor landlords exist within every other part of the private rental market. That does not remotely represent what a properly developed and professionally managed HMO should look like.
Modern HMOs can be some of the most heavily regulated properties within the private rented sector.
Larger HMOs generally require mandatory HMO licensing, while councils can introduce additional licensing requirements covering other shared properties within their areas. Landlords have to comply with requirements surrounding fire safety, electrical safety, gas safety, occupancy levels, room sizes, amenity provision and property management.
Councils can inspect these properties and take enforcement action where landlords fail to meet the required standards.
The HMOs we develop go through an extensive refurbishment and development process. We generally work with five and six-bedroom professional HMOs, with ensuite bedrooms, properly sized communal areas, modern kitchens, new plumbing and electrical installations where required, appropriate fire protection, insulation improvements, modern heating systems and EPC upgrades.
We have spent decades developing properties specifically around what professional tenants actually want to live in.
That is a long way from the rundown “slum HMO” image that gets thrown around whenever somebody wants to attack the sector.
Professional HMOs actually solve a housing problem
There is also a wider issue that gets forgotten when HMOs are attacked indiscriminately.
Britain needs good-quality rental accommodation at different price points.
Not everybody wants to rent a whole house. Not everybody can justify paying for a one-bedroom apartment. Somebody taking a new job might only expect to remain in the area for two years. A young professional may prefer saving towards a mortgage deposit rather than spending considerably more each month on a flat.
Professional HMOs give those people another option.
Removing good-quality shared accommodation does not somehow make those tenants disappear. It simply leaves them competing for fewer rental properties, often at a considerably higher monthly cost.
We have seen that demand ourselves across more than three decades of operating professional HMOs.
People do not rent rooms solely because they have no other choice. Plenty actively prefer the simplicity of a well-managed shared property where they have their own private bedroom and bathroom without having to take responsibility for an entire house.
Local concerns need to be aimed at the correct type of property
People are perfectly entitled to have views about Government asylum policy, temporary accommodation or the location of particular accommodation facilities.
Those arguments need to be directed at the policy actually being discussed.
What makes very little sense is seeing an ordinary professional HMO development and automatically assuming that asylum seekers will be housed there simply because somebody has heard that “the Government is using HMOs”.
Find out what the property actually is.
Is it a privately operated professional HMO?
Is it student accommodation?
Is it accommodation provided under a Government contract?
Is it another form of temporary or supported housing?
Those distinctions matter enormously.
A professional HMO occupied by five working tenants has no more connection to a Home Office asylum accommodation contract than an ordinary family house does simply because the Government also happens to use houses within some accommodation programmes.
The HMO sector should not be tarnished with the same brush
We have developed and managed professional HMOs for over 34 years.
Throughout that period, our properties have housed working people from an enormous variety of industries. They have provided accommodation for people starting jobs, relocating between towns, working on contracts and simply choosing shared accommodation because it suited their finances and lifestyle better than renting an entire house.
We do not have Government asylum accommodation contracts attached to the HMOs we manage.
That point needs repeating because the distinction has become so badly blurred.
Professional-let HMOs are private rented accommodation for professional tenants. The HMO properties being discussed within the asylum accommodation debate are specific temporary or dispersal accommodation properties procured and managed through Government-contracted arrangements.
They can both technically be Houses in Multiple Occupation.
They are not the same sector.
HMOs were not invented for asylum seekers
Perhaps the strangest part of the current rumour is how easily decades of housing history have apparently disappeared from the conversation.
HMOs did not suddenly arrive when the Government began looking for alternatives to asylum hotels.
People have been renting rooms within shared properties for generations. Houses in multiple occupation have been specifically regulated in British legislation since at least the early 1960s, while the underlying form of shared accommodation existed long before that.
Professional HMOs have since developed into an established part of the private rented sector, particularly for people who want flexible, furnished accommodation without taking on an entire property themselves.
We have personally been developing and managing them for more than 34 years.
The current Government may use certain temporary accommodation properties that are legally classified as HMOs as part of its asylum accommodation system. Those are specific properties operating within that system.
That does not make your local professional HMO an asylum property.
It does not mean landlords operating professional HMOs suddenly have Government contracts.
It certainly does not mean HMOs were created for asylum seekers.
The letters HMO describe how a building is occupied. Nothing more.
Professional-let HMOs and Government-contracted temporary accommodation HMOs should be discussed for what they actually are, rather than bundling two completely different housing markets together and pretending they are the same thing.