Coventry’s net temporary-accommodation bill reached £14.852m as hotel use fell
Status: Flagship investigation — FOI findings published; provider and cost-driver analysis continuing
Coventry’s net temporary-accommodation expenditure rose from £6.318 million in 2020/21 to £14.852 million in 2025/26. Over the same recent period, hotel and B&B placements fell sharply. Restore Britain Coventry is examining what now drives the bill and whether the council can show where the money goes.
The Coventry impact
Temporary accommodation is the roof offered when a household has nowhere safe to stay. Coventry’s own guidance says that can mean a hotel room, a shared house or a move at short notice. For families and vulnerable residents, the quality and stability of that accommodation matter as much as the cost.
What we found
Coventry City Council’s response to FOI839036809, dated 17 June 2026, records net temporary-accommodation expenditure of £6.318 million in 2020/21 and £14.852 million in 2025/26. The increase is £8.534 million over five financial years.
The same response records 836 households placed in hotels or B&Bs during 2023/24, falling to 283 in 2024/25 and 94 in 2025/26. Average hotel/B&B stays fell to 14 nights in 2025/26. That is a meaningful improvement and deserves recognition.
The council’s 2025/26 outturn also records a £0.4 million underspend on the cost of delivering temporary accommodation after fewer families required support. Housing and Homelessness finished £2.9 million under budget overall, mainly because grant funding was £1.9 million higher than expected, although delays to additional accommodation created a separate £0.8 million pressure.
Those improvements do not explain why the net bill reached £14.852 million. Hotel and B&B use is only part of temporary accommodation. The wider cost can include leased or nightly paid properties, other placement types, rents, repairs, management, support and the amount recovered through housing benefit or government funding.
The FOI response did not provide a separate annual total for hotel and B&B spending. It did not calculate highest or average nightly rates, saying that would require examination of individual invoices and purchase-card records. It also held no central record specifically identifying every direct award, waiver or procurement exemption connected to temporary accommodation.
Why it matters
An emergency housing system can become expensive precisely when permanent supply is scarce and decisions must be made quickly. But a rising bill is not a measure of compassion or success. Households need safe accommodation and a route out of it; taxpayers need to know whether Coventry is buying strategically or repeatedly paying emergency prices.
The frustration here is avoidable. At nearly £15 million net, the main cost drivers need to be visible without asking residents to reconstruct thousands of transactions.
What the evidence does and does not show
Net expenditure is the remaining cost after relevant income and recoveries. It is not the gross amount paid to providers. The evidence does not show that accommodation was unnecessary, that a household received improper help or that a provider acted wrongly.
The fall in hotel/B&B use may reflect better management, greater availability elsewhere or changing demand. It cannot establish that the rest of the system became cheaper. Only a breakdown by accommodation type, duration, provider and recovery can answer that.
The unanswered questions
The council holds the transaction and placement records needed to show gross spend, recoveries and net cost by accommodation type for each financial year.
The missing provider account identifies the largest providers, the procurement route used, the amount paid, the number of households accommodated and the range of nightly or weekly rates, with safeguards that prevent identification of residents.
It must also reconcile the falling hotel/B&B numbers with the rising overall net expenditure. The material drivers may include prices, other placement types, longer stays outside hotels, demand, repairs, support costs or unrecovered funding. At present, residents cannot see which mattered most.
Our verdict
Coventry has reduced hotel and B&B use, and that improvement belongs in the headline account. It does not close the investigation. A net bill of £14.852 million in 2025/26 is too large to be explained through scattered spending files and uncalculated rates. Vulnerable households deserve a service measured by safety and successful move-on. Taxpayers deserve a financial account clear enough to show whether emergency pressure is being managed or merely paid for.
What we are doing about it
FOI839036809 has been received and analysed. We are reconciling the council’s published spending-over-£500 files to build a provider-level picture and identify records that cannot be matched confidently.
Follow-up questions will seek gross and net expenditure, recoveries, placement types, provider payments, rate ranges, procurement routes and the council’s explanation for the five-year increase. Findings will be reported in aggregate so that no household can be identified.
Evidence and status
Status: Findings published; provider and procurement analysis continuing.
Last updated: 6 August 2026.
Primary sources: Coventry City Council FOI839036809, response dated 17 June 2026, held by the branch; Coventry FOI disclosure log; Coventry 2025/26 Revenue and Capital Outturn, Appendix; Coventry temporary-accommodation guidance.
FOI reference: FOI839036809.
Next expected evidence: Provider reconciliation and follow-up filing are in progress; no statutory response date is yet available.