Napier Barracks: Clearsprings Profits as Kent’s Private Rental Market Squeezed

On the edge of town, Napier Barracks has come to symbolise a national experiment in mass asylum accommodation that a High Court judge ruled unlawful in 2021. The Home Office’s contractor on the ground, Clearsprings Ready Homes (CRH), kept the site running despite withering assessments of safety, suitability and dignity. Today, as Kent councils struggle to house local residents, the private firms running the asylum estate are making soaring profits under government contracts whose value has tripled. 

What The Court Said About Napier

In NB & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2021), Mr Justice Linden held that using Napier Barracks for vulnerable asylum seekers was unlawful. The court found “inevitable” risk of a major Covid outbreak; identified serious fire safety failings; and concluded the system for screening and allocating people to the camp fell below lawful standards (including duties under the Equality Act 2010). Several claimants experienced a deterioration in mental health, and restrictions on movement were so severe that parts of their stay constituted false imprisonment. 

Despite that judgment, Napier has remained in use. The Home Office’s own planning statement confirms the barracks have been used since September 2020 for up to 350 residents, and only this spring did the department signal that mass use would end by September 2025. However, the BBC and others revealed it’ll now stay open until December

The Money: Contracts That Balloned And Profits That Soared

The Commons Home Affairs Committee reported last week that the value of the government’s asylum accommodation contracts—held by Clearsprings Ready Homes, Mears Group and Serco—has leapt from £4.5 billion to £15.3 billion for 2019–2029, with weak oversight and minimal clawback for poor performance. The National Audit Office separately recorded £383 million in profits for the three firms over five years. Journalistic and civil-society investigations show CRH’s income exploding to £1.7 billion with cumulative post-tax profits around £187 million since 2019; the company’s owner has entered the Sunday Times Rich List.

Meanwhile, a new Corporate Watch probe into CRH’s subcontractors describes “publicly-funded slum landlordism”: rapidly rising profits and property portfolios at firms such as Cromwood and Nationwide Accommodation Services (NACCS), including dividends and related-party rentals—all ultimately paid by the taxpayer.

“One Of The UK’s Biggest Rogue Landlords”

Regulatory action has followed. A Good Jobs First review of local authority enforcement says Clearsprings has faced prosecutions and civil penalties from councils including Bristol, Havering, Newport, Greenwich and Swindon (which has laid 27 charges over conditions). The group’s analysis calls Clearsprings “one of the UK’s most-fined corporate landlords” across London, Wales and the South.

Where Are Kent Properties Being Rented

Under the Home Office’s Asylum Accommodation and Support Contracts (AASC), **Kent sits in the “South” region, where CRH—not Serco or Mears—holds the main contract. Serco’s regions are the North West, Midlands and East of England; Mears holds Scotland, Northern Ireland, North East and Yorkshire & Humber. In practice, this means CRH is the contractor securing rented homes in Kent.

Specific Kent sites and activity documented publicly include:

• Folkestone (Napier Barracks) – operated for the Home Office by Clearsprings since 2020.

• Broadstairs (Thanet) – former Canterbury Christ Church University campus rooms were procured by Clearsprings for asylum accommodation in 2022, prompting protest from local leaders about the lack of consultation.

• Sevenoaks district – council papers note that the Home Office appointed Clearsprings to identify and secure private rented accommodation in the South East; Sevenoaks expected allocations under “full dispersal.”

Kent County Council documents also confirm that, in the South East, accommodation and support is provided by Clearsprings under Home Office contract—underscoring that CRH is the firm renting properties here.

There is no evidence that Mears or Serco rent asylum accommodation in Kent under AASC. Their own materials state they operate in other regions; Serco is actively recruiting landlords outside the South East (North West, Midlands, East). Mears has operations in Kent for other housing services, but not as the AASC provider.

**Separately, Kent County Council has also commissioned Clearsprings’ “Ready Homes Young People” service for 16–25s, whose website lists current accommodation locations across Kent—Ashford, Canterbury, Dartford, Dover, Folkestone & Hythe, Gravesham, Maidstone, Medway, Swale, Thanet and Tunbridge Wells—illustrating the breadth of Clearsprings’ housing footprint in the county alongside its Home Office work.

How CRH’s Corporate Leasing Tightens Kent’s Private Rental Market

It is correct that asylum seekers are not placed ahead of locals on social housing lists—but CRH’s corporate leasing model does compete directly in the private rented sector that locals and councils also rely on. CRH actively markets to landlords with “Guaranteed Rent”, “Long Term Contracts” and “Zero Hassle”—terms that most households (and local authorities procuring temporary accommodation) cannot match. Broker and trade material describes multi-year corporate leases with repairs and voids covered, further tilting the field. In a tight market, that offer can hoover up available stock. 

Kent’s councils also face the “move-on” crunch: national evidence from the Local Government Association shows backlogs and policy shifts around the 28-day/56-day move-on period have increased homelessness presentations and pressure on local supply—costs that land with councils and communities. Even CRH’s own evidence to Parliament acknowledges “challenges in sufficient private rented sector [dispersed] accommodation” in the South. The bottom line: even without using social homes, the AASC leasing model can shrink PRS availability for Kent residents.

Civil Penalties In Kent: What WE Could (And Couldn’t) Verify

We checked public enforcement registers and housing enforcement pages across Kent districts (Folkestone & Hythe, Dover, Thanet, Canterbury and others). As of 1 November 2025, we found no published civil-penalty notices naming Clearsprings Ready Homes in Kent. Kent councils do have—and use—civil-penalty powers against landlords under the Housing Act, but we could not locate a Kent case that specifically names CRH. By contrast, CRH has been fined elsewhere (e.g., £60,586 in Newport for HMO offences) and is the subject of prosecution activity in Swindon, where courts have recently allowed proceedings on housing-standards breaches to go ahead.

Why Tensions Are Running High

Kent councils have long warned central government against using the county as an “easy fix” without consultation. When Broadstairs student blocks were taken for asylum accommodation, Thanet’s council leader complained the district had been kept in the dark. The shift to “full dispersal” across all local authorities, combined with the private market’s guaranteed rents for contractors, has intensified competition for scarce rentals—especially in coastal towns already grappling with homelessness and temporary accommodation costs.

At the same time, the public finances tell a stark story: the NAO says hotels (still widely used) account for 76% of annual costs while housing only 35% of people, at a typical £145 per person per night, versus roughly £14 for shared housing. The Select Committee calls this model “failed, chaotic and expensive.”

Do Asylum Seekers “Get Housed & Get Money”?

Facts matter. People seeking asylum cannot generally work while claims are decided. Those who are destitute may receive Section 95 support: £49.18 per week per person on a payment card—about £7 a day—for essentials, or £9.95 per week if meals are provided (e.g., in hotels). Multiple official and independent sources confirm these rates. Whatever one’s politics, those sums are meagre; charities regularly step in with basics such as clothing and toiletries.

What Should Happen Next

Parliament’s Home Affairs Committee wants tighter oversight, transparency on subcontractors, and a strategy that ends the reliance on costly, poor-quality mass sites and hotels. Councils—who deal with the consequences—are urging a reset that gives them control, aligns placements with local housing realities, and enforces decent standards across the board. With the contracts’ 2026 break clause approaching, ministers face a choice: keep paying for a system that enriches landlords while communities and residents absorb the fallout—or bring accountability, local leadership and lawful standards back to the centre.

The Shepway Vox Team

The Velvet Voices of Voxatiousness