Temporary accommodation costs in your town, why they’ve risen, and what councils can actually change

If you’ve looked at local council budgets lately, one line keeps jumping off the page: temporary accommodation costs. It sounds dry, but it’s not. It’s families in B&Bs, parents trying to get kids to school from the wrong side of the county, and councils paying eye-watering nightly rates because there’s nowhere else to go.

People often ask the same thing, and it’s a fair question: if the council is “spending millions”, why doesn’t the problem shrink? The answer is that some of the drivers are national, but plenty of the waste and poor decision-making is local. That’s where real change can happen.

What “temporary accommodation” really means, and why it’s so expensive

Temporary accommodation (often shortened to TA) is where councils place households when they have a legal duty to help and there’s no settled home available. It can include nightly-paid rooms in B&Bs and hotels, private flats leased at short notice, or council-managed units used as a stop-gap.

The cost problem comes from the way TA is bought. Think of it like travel: a planned season ticket is usually cheaper than buying a last-minute fare every day. Nightly-paid TA is the last-minute fare of housing. When demand rises and supply is tight, prices jump quickly, and councils have little bargaining power.

Nationally, the scale is huge. Recent figures highlighted by Shelter show councils in England spent billions on TA in 2024/25, with a sharp year-on-year increase and a large share going on the least suitable options like emergency B&Bs. See Shelter’s breakdown in bill for homeless accommodation hitting £2.8bn.

Local market pressures add fuel. When private rents rise faster than wages, more people fall into homelessness and fewer homes are available at a price benefits can cover. In County Durham, ONS data shows rents and prices have been moving up, which squeezes both tenants and councils trying to procure placements. The ONS page on housing prices in County Durham gives a useful snapshot.

None of this excuses bad practice. TA is expensive by nature, but it gets even pricier when councils rely on middlemen, roll over contracts, or don’t challenge charges.

Why temporary accommodation costs have risen in towns like ours

Rising TA bills are usually a symptom of three problems happening at the same time.

First, there simply aren’t enough genuinely affordable homes to move people into. When social housing lets are limited, the queue gets longer and TA becomes a waiting room that never empties. Local analysis has suggested that, even if nobody new joined the list, it could still take years to clear it at current letting rates. That “blocked exit” effect is captured in waiting list pressures in County Durham.

Second, more households are hitting crisis point. Relationship breakdown, job loss, ill health, domestic abuse, and eviction all land on the council’s desk. If prevention is weak, the council ends up paying for the most expensive stage of the problem instead of the cheapest stage.

Third, the wider council budget is under strain, so services that should reduce homelessness can get thinned out. When you lose experienced staff, or when processes slow down, TA stays occupied for longer. That delay is costly, because every extra week in TA is another invoice. Durham’s own budget planning documents show the scale of savings pressures the council is juggling. For context, see the Durham County Council Medium Term Financial Plan report (Sept 2025).

This is why residents feel like the council is paying more and getting less. It isn’t just “housing”. It’s procurement, staffing, contract management, and speed of decision-making.

What councils can actually change (and what they can’t)

It helps to be honest about the limits. Councils do not set benefits levels, immigration policy, or national housing law. They can’t print money, and they can’t force private landlords to rent at a loss.

But councils do control more than they sometimes admit, especially on costs, standards, and speed.

Here’s a quick way to split it:

What drives costs	What the council can change
High nightly rates in B&Bs and hotels	Reduce hotel use by securing longer-term leased units and council-run TA
Long stays because there’s no move-on	Speed up allocations, clear bottlenecks, and expand “move-on” options
Contractor and agency mark-ups	Re-tender, negotiate, or bring services in-house where it’s cheaper
Poor matching of households to placements	Better triage, better data, fewer failed placements

The main levers councils do have

1) Better procurement and tougher contract control
If a council doesn’t know its average cost per household per week by provider, it’s negotiating blind. Transparent reporting and hard performance measures matter.

2) Build or buy the right kind of stock
Councils can increase supply through acquisitions, conversions, and partnerships, including using national funding pots when available. Government has announced further funding aimed at increasing TA supply and cutting B&B use, covered in Local Authority Housing Fund funding (Housing Today).

3) Faster prevention, not just crisis response
Small early interventions can prevent expensive placements. That includes rent deposit schemes, targeted mediation, and rapid support for people leaving hospital or care.

4) Sensible allocations within the law
Councils can shape allocation schemes and local connection rules (within legal duties) so local people aren’t constantly shoved to the back of the queue.

A Reform UK approach: cut waste, protect residents, and get people housed faster

For Reform UK supporters, this issue lands on a simple principle: make less money go further. TA spending is exactly where that mindset should bite, because poor management turns a housing shortage into a money bonfire.

A Reform UK style programme at council level would focus on the basics residents actually feel:

Stop rip-off contracting and agency dependency. If private providers are charging premium rates, councils should challenge, re-tender, and publish outcomes. The public should be able to see what’s paid per night and why.

No inflated senior pay for poor results. When TA numbers rise and placements are unsuitable, residents shouldn’t be funding top-end salaries that don’t deliver. Put cash into front-line housing officers, not layers of management.

No four-day week politics. Housing teams need capacity, speed, and accountability. If residents work full-time to pay their way, the council should run like it respects that.

Local people first, fairly applied. Councils can and should design allocations that recognise local connection, while still meeting statutory duties. It’s about fairness and trust.

Zero tolerance on crime and anti-social behaviour in and around TA. Bad behaviour can wreck placements, drive up repairs, and push decent families out. Strong enforcement protects residents and reduces churn.

Measure what matters: time in TA. The key target isn’t pretty strategy documents. It’s the average length of stay, the share in B&Bs, and the cost per household per week.

When councils get these basics right, two things happen at once: costs fall and standards rise. That’s the point.

Conclusion

Temporary accommodation isn’t a niche issue. It’s one of the clearest signs that the system is failing, and that temporary accommodation costs are crowding out other local priorities. National policy plays a big role, but councils still control procurement, staffing, allocation rules, enforcement, and the speed of moving people into settled homes. If you want a practical test of competence, look at TA: the numbers don’t lie, and Reform UK voters are right to demand better.