London Councils has urged the government to rethink its Fair Funding Review 2.0, warning the proposed deprivation measures and funding formula would understate the capital’s needs unless housing costs and the true scale of homelessness and temporary accommodation spending are explicitly incorporated.
London Councils has urged the government to rethink the Fair Funding Review 2.0 as its consultation closes, arguing that any new funding formula for England’s local authorities must reflect London’s particular deprivation profile and the true cost of housing. The cross‑party group warns that the current deprivation measure would, for example, give equal weighting to the distance to a post office and to homelessness, a disparity they say risks under‑funding essential services in the capital. The appeal comes amid mounting cost pressures tied to homelessness and temporary accommodation: boroughs reportedly spent around £114 million each month on temporary accommodation during 2023–24, affecting roughly 183,000 Londoners. Housing poverty is a defining feature of London deprivation, the group notes, and must be factored into any sustainable funding framework. In a statement, London Councils emphasised that reform must distribute resources to areas with the highest need while recognising the capital’s sharp cost pressures and the scale of homelessness. The organisation has also drawn attention to the broader context of funding gaps, with London historically facing the widest gap between need and funding across England and a growing reliance on emergency support to keep services running.
The reform project, London Councils argues, cannot proceed without addressing broader design features that will shape how much cash arrives in the capital. The government’s own Fair Funding Review 2.0 page outlines that remoteness costs would be considered in allocations, that councils’ ability to raise Council Tax would be a factor, and that business rates would be reformed. The plan seeks to simplify the existing RNF framework, consolidate grants into a more predictable Settlement, and create bespoke allocations for high‑cost areas such as temporary accommodation, with a multi‑year settlement slated to begin in 2026/27. These structural shifts, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned, will not land evenly: inner London boroughs are among the biggest losers under many redistribution scenarios, with the relationship between deprivation and funding changes far from straightforward and some deprived areas potentially receiving targeted top‑ups even as others lose out. The combined effect, London Councils says, could be a new version of regional inequality if London’s housing costs and cost‑of‑living pressures are not explicitly accounted for in any reform package.
A series of London Councils statements and commissioned analyses further argue that the proposed reforms would systematically understate London’s needs unless housing costs are robustly incorporated. The council body notes that London has the highest poverty rate in the country once housing costs are included, and highlights overspending on temporary accommodation as a central budget pressure that must be reflected in the funding framework to protect the capital’s ability to deliver critical services. In August 2025, London Councils published a warning over proposed reforms to children’s services funding: commissioned by the Council and conducted by the National Children’s Bureau and Public Alchemy, the analysis argues that the CYPS relative needs formula lacks robustness and fails to account for housing costs, meaning London could face a substantial redistribution away from its services unless the approach is retested with stronger evidence. Taken together, the material suggests London’s councils are bracing for a shift in funding that could exacerbate already high levels of deprivation unless the reforms are redesigned to recognise the capital’s housing affordability challenge and its implications for service delivery.
📌 Reference Map:
Source: Noah Wire Services
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
4
Notes:
🕰️ Low–moderate freshness: the narrative is largely repackaging London Councils material published earlier (earliest closely matching items found from 24 Oct 2024 and 20 Jun 2025), not a breaking original investigation. ‼️ Key earlier publications: London Councils’ homelessness briefing (24 Oct 2024) and its funding-reform comment (20 Jun 2025); a children’s services press release followed on 1 Aug 2025. ([londoncouncils.gov.uk](https://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/news-and-press-releases/2024/emergency-warning-issued-london-homelessness-hits-new-records?utm_source=chatgpt.com)). Because substantially similar content appeared more than 7 days earlier, freshness is downgraded. ⚠️ If the piece is derived from or copies a press release, that explains the timeliness but reduces originality.
Quotes check
Score:
3
Notes:
🔁 Reused quotes likely: several direct phrases and quoted remarks (for example from Cllr Claire Holland and other London Councils spokespeople) appear verbatim in London Councils material and in subsequent coverage, indicating the wording is not unique to the presented narrative. ([londoncouncils.gov.uk](https://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/news-and-press-releases/2025/council-funding-reforms-must-match-londons-deprivation-and-cost-0?utm_source=chatgpt.com)). 🟠 If the item republishes press-release quotations without attribution or fresh reporting, that reduces originality and should be flagged for crediting the original statement.
Source reliability
Score:
8
Notes:
✅ Core claims trace to reputable, verifiable organisations: London Councils (cross‑party borough body), the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) analysis, and government consultation documents — all publicly accessible. ([londoncouncils.gov.uk](https://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/news-and-press-releases/2025/council-funding-reforms-must-match-londons-deprivation-and-cost-0?utm_source=chatgpt.com), [ifs.org.uk](https://ifs.org.uk/publications/fair-funding-review-20-impacts-council-funding-across-england?utm_source=chatgpt.com)). ⚠️ The publishing site (BDC Magazine / bdcmagazine.com) appears to be a trade/industry outlet (site active and publishing), so the reproduction of a press release there is plausible but indicates lower editorial guarantee of original reporting. ([bdcmagazine.com](https://bdcmagazine.com/?utm_source=chatgpt.com)).
Plausability check
Score:
7
Notes:
✅ Plausible and corroborated: the headline claims (scale of temporary accommodation spending, high numbers in temporary accommodation, London at high poverty once housing costs are included, and IFS warnings about redistribution impacts) are documented by London Councils and covered by national outlets. ([londoncouncils.gov.uk](https://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/news-and-press-releases/2024/emergency-warning-issued-london-homelessness-hits-new-records?utm_source=chatgpt.com), [ifs.org.uk](https://ifs.org.uk/publications/fair-funding-review-20-impacts-council-funding-across-england?utm_source=chatgpt.com)). ⚠️ Discrepancies over time: monthly-spend estimates and overspend figures have changed across London Councils’ publications (e.g. earlier monthly figures and later ones differ), so check which financial year and methodology the article uses. 🧾 If the narrative mixes figures from different reports/years without clear labelling, that is a credibility risk.
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): PASS
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): MEDIUM
Summary:
✅ PASS — The narrative is supported by authoritative, verifiable evidence (London Councils’ briefings and press releases, IFS analysis and government consultation material) and is therefore factually plausible and corroborated. ([londoncouncils.gov.uk](https://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/news-and-press-releases/2024/emergency-warning-issued-london-homelessness-hits-new-records?utm_source=chatgpt.com), [ifs.org.uk](https://ifs.org.uk/publications/fair-funding-review-20-impacts-council-funding-across-england?utm_source=chatgpt.com)). ‼️ Major risks: the piece largely recycles London Councils material (press statements and commissioned analysis) rather than presenting original reporting, so freshness and originality are limited; identical quotations and figures appear in earlier London Councils publications and mainstream coverage. 🕰️ Specifically, the homelessness figures and the ‘‘£114m per month / ~183,000 Londoners’’ data were published by London Councils on 24 Oct 2024, and London Councils’ funding‑reform commentary appeared on 20 Jun 2025 (with a children’s services press release on 1 Aug 2025) — all predating the August 2025 posting. ([londoncouncils.gov.uk](https://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/news-and-press-releases/2024/emergency-warning-issued-london-homelessness-hits-new-records?utm_source=chatgpt.com)). ⚠️ Editors should therefore flag recycled press‑release content, verify which report/version each numeric claim references (to resolve changes in monthly/annual figures), and ensure direct quotes are attributed to London Councils if republished. 🔎 Recommended next steps: (1) treat the narrative as accurate but derivative; (2) cross‑check any specific financial figures against the original London Councils report PDFs and the government consultation pages before republishing; (3) label content clearly as a summary of London Councils material if no independent reporting was done.
