Forcing unrelated adults to share bedrooms is an affront to their dignity, say campaigners

Migration charities have condemned a tribunal’s ruling that forcing unrelated asylum seekers to share bedrooms does not breach environmental health laws, describing the practice as “an affront to dignity”.

The ruling this month followed a legal battle between Newcastle city council and the company Jomast, which is subcontracted by G4S to house asylum seekers in the north-east.

In March last year the council introduced a new standards policy for asylum seeker accommodation. The policy sought to crack down on individuals being forced to share bedrooms with strangers, after reports that some were sharing with people who did not even speak the same language.

In November the local authority served six notices on Jomast under section 139 of the Housing Act 2004 after it found that asylum seekers were still sharing bedrooms. Jomast appealed against the notices, arguing that the council did not have the legal power to prevent the sharing of rooms.

The property tribunal concluded on 16 May that “the law does not prohibit unconnected persons of the same sex from sleeping in the same room” and ruled in favour of Jomast.

Migration and Asylum Justice Forum, a Tyneside-based network of groups and individuals who campaign for migrant and refugee rights, said it was deeply disappointed by the tribunal’s decision.

“We reiterate that, whatever the vagaries of legislation, the overcrowding and forced co-habitation of unrelated adults in the north-east is an affront to their dignity and a threat to their mental and physical wellbeing,” the group said.

Maurice Wren, the chief executive of the Refugee Council, said many people seeking asylum had fled horrifying experiences in their own countries and were traumatised as a result. “They do not get a choice of where they live and are totally reliant on unaccountable contractors to ensure that their properties are appropriate to their needs,” he said.

“It is appalling that people in these circumstances are being forced to share rooms, sometimes for many months or years, with strangers that may not even speak their language. This practice needs to stop immediately to allow people to live with dignity and start to recover from their experiences while feeling safe and secure.”

Joyce McCarty, the council’s deputy leader and cabinet member for housing, said the council recognised that asylum seekers could be required to share living areas such as kitchens and bathrooms with people they did not know, but sharing a bedroom with a stranger was unacceptable.

“It can exacerbate mental and physical health problems and increase tensions between individuals and communities,” she said. “We don’t expect anyone else to live in this way and believe it is unfair to impose these requirements on asylum seekers who are sent to live in our city without any say in where they live.

“In reaching a decision, the tribunal relied on historical standards of overcrowding dating back to the 1950s without considering recent evidence that demonstrates these outdated standards are not compatible with the need to improve housing standards.”



In October last year charities said asylum seekers were being housed in “squalid, unsafe, slum housing conditions”, and the general public were largely unaware of the conditions into which “traumatised people are routinely dumped”.

Responsibility for housing people seeking asylum in the UK was taken away from local authorities in 2012 and given to Serco, G4S and Clearsprings under contracts with the Home Office known as Compass. New contracts for asylum seeker housing are currently out to tender.



After a tribunal hearing in March, Jomast’s managing director, Stuart Monk, told the Newcastle Chronicle he would have no issue sharing a bedroom himself. “Plenty of people have to share accommodation,” he said. “I shared a room with my brother for 30 years.”

Speaking to the Guardian after the conclusion of the tribunal, Monk dismissed the Migration and Asylum Justice Forum as “a bunch of communists”. He said: “We welcome the tribunal’s decision to uphold the appeals and we will consider the decision carefully with a view to engaging in constructive dialogue with Newcastle city council.”

Monk said his company did not make the rules. “At the end of the day we’re a commercial contractor doing a job,” he said.

Jomast came in for criticism in 2016 after complaints that properties in which it housed asylum seekers were identifiable by their red doors, making their occupants targets for abuse.

A Home Office spokesperson said: “The UK has a long history of granting asylum to those who need our protection and we are committed to providing safe and secure accommodation while applications are considered.”

