(EPPING) The government’s plan to shut down asylum hotels faces a fresh legal and political test after the High Court ordered the removal of asylum seekers from the Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex, by September 12. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said ministers still aim to end hotel use “as swiftly as possible,” but only in an orderly way and not through “piecemeal court decisions” that force sudden moves. The Home Office is appealing aspects of the Epping case while warning that abrupt hotel closures risk pushing people into destitution.
Government strategy and legal steps
The ruling on August 19 followed legal action by Epping Forest District Council and has already encouraged a wave of challenges from other local authorities.
According to officials, the Home Office will seek to challenge both:
- the temporary injunction used to block continued occupation of the Bell Hotel, and
- the High Court’s refusal to let the department intervene in the case at an earlier stage.
A Court of Appeal decision, if granted, could shape how councils and the Home Office handle similar disputes in the months ahead.
Cooper’s message is that closures must be “properly managed” to avoid simply shifting the problem to other areas. The government’s public target is to end hotel use by 2029, but current pressures are growing.
Key data and context:
- Official figures and local reports show an 8% rise in the number of people placed in asylum hotels compared with this time last year.
- London now has the highest share, with 65% of its asylum population in hotels as of Q1 2025.
Policy direction has shifted since earlier proposals to use military sites. Only one large government-owned location—Wethersfield in Essex—remains operational. Ministers are exploring alternatives such as disused tower blocks, teacher training colleges, and student accommodation, but:
- housing shortages,
- safety rules,
- and local resistance
all limit those options.
The government continues to rely on the “full-dispersal” model introduced in May 2023, which asks every local authority to house people seeking asylum based on population. Delivery varies widely across England, and councils say the burden often falls unevenly.
The Home Office stresses it has a legal duty to ensure asylum seekers are not left without shelter or basic support while claims progress. That obligation often leaves hotels as a short-notice option when dispersal housing is full or unsuitable.
For factual guidance on support available during the asylum process, see the official government page: https://www.gov.uk/asylum-support
Councils turn to the courts
Epping’s injunction has become a rallying point. At least 18 councils—across all major parties—are now pursuing or weighing similar legal action to stop hotels being used for asylum accommodation in their areas.
Councils actively moving ahead include:
- Epping
- Broxbourne
- West Northamptonshire
- Stevenage
- Tamworth
- South Norfolk
- Spelthorne
Others considering action include Wirral, Blackpool, Derby, and Hillingdon. Some councils that had opposed legal action earlier are now revisiting that stance after the Epping outcome.
How the legal process works in practice:
- A council applies to the High Court for an injunction to block a hotel from housing asylum seekers.
- If the court grants the order, the Home Office and the hotel operator can appeal.
- Appeals must follow the court’s timetable unless the decision is overturned.
The Epping ruling requires people to leave the Bell Hotel by September 12, unless a higher court pauses or reverses the order.
The Home Office warns that rapid removals:
- disrupt planned placements and transport,
- interrupt medical appointments and legal advice,
- and make an orderly exit difficult and potentially risky for individuals.
Local leaders cite pressures on services, safeguarding concerns, and community tensions when seeking injunctions. Councillors also complain they are not given enough notice before hotels switch to asylum use.
Legal tension: councils argue the full-dispersal system still lands too many people in a small number of districts. Legal practitioners note that blanket bans on asylum hotels may conflict with central government’s statutory duty to prevent destitution, and courts often weigh that duty heavily.
If Epping reaches the Court of Appeal, the stakes rise. A binding ruling would either:
- limit councils’ ability to stop hotel use, or
- affirm stronger local power to block hotels.
Either outcome would reshape how quickly the government can close sites while meeting its legal obligations.
Human impact, protests, and what comes next
As legal fights spread, tensions outside asylum hotels have increased. Towns and cities have seen more protests, with anti-immigration and anti-racism groups facing off in places such as Portsmouth.
Refugee charities report that people in hotels feel “hunted” and are afraid to leave their rooms during noisy demonstrations. For families, frequent moves mean new schools, new doctors, and greater uncertainty.
Data trends and capacity issues:
- Nationally, the share of asylum seekers in hotels fell from 47% at the end of Q3 2023 to 37% at the end of Q4 2024, but numbers have climbed again this year.
- Dispersal housing capacity remains tight, and long-term suitable properties are scarce.
- Analysis by VisaVerge.com suggests the government’s shift away from military sites removed a potential safety valve, forcing ministers to chase short-term fixes.
Costs, politics, and legal duties pull in different directions:
- The Home Office and local councils face tight budgets.
- Communities worry about strain on housing and services.
- The UK must still meet its legal duty to support asylum seekers who would otherwise be homeless.
Legal experts say that duty makes total bans on hotel use hard to defend, especially if no immediate alternative exists.
Three themes define the next phase:
- Court timelines will dictate immediate moves. The Bell Hotel order sets a clear deadline of September 12. If appeals do not change that date, people must relocate—either to other hotels or alternative sites—within days.
- More councils may follow Epping into the High Court. Each local success brings fresh cases and could create a patchwork of bans that push the Home Office to concentrate placements elsewhere.
- Alternative accommodation remains the hinge. Without new options coming online quickly, officials will struggle to scale down hotel use and still meet the 2029 target.
On the ground, situations change week by week. A hotel slated to close can receive a late extension if an appeal is lodged. Planned moves can fall through if transport or healthcare arrangements are not ready. Families with children need time to transfer school records; people with ongoing medical treatment require continuity of care—something sudden moves disrupt.
The government says this is why it prefers to phase out hotels through a managed programme rather than via case-by-case court orders. Local politics also play a role: opposition figures in the Conservative Party and Reform UK have urged councils to challenge hotel use, while Labour-run councils have joined legal action too. This cross-party alignment, driven by local pressures, adds urgency in Whitehall to find alternative beds while keeping communities onside.
Wethersfield in Essex remains the largest government-run site still operating, but it cannot absorb all numbers if injunctions accelerate. Disused tower blocks and student accommodation have been floated as interim solutions, yet each option requires:
- fire safety checks,
- accessibility for families and disabled people,
- links to healthcare and legal support,
- and community consultation.
Those checks take time and often prompt legitimate local concerns.
Charity perspective and official response:
- Charities say help must be easy to reach and moves must be safe and planned.
- The Home Office says it will keep working with councils, police, and support providers to reduce risks around protests and transfers.
For information on support during the asylum process, see: https://www.gov.uk/asylum-support
The wider picture and the human standard
The Epping case is now a bellwether. If the appeal fails and the deadline holds, the Home Office must move people out of the Bell Hotel by September 12 while avoiding rough sleeping or loss of services. If the appeal succeeds, the government could gain more room to coordinate closures on a national timetable. Either outcome will ripple beyond Essex, shaping how quickly asylum hotels close across England and how much say local councils have.
Background factors:
- The hotel system was born of crisis: the pandemic froze the housing market and slowed asylum decisions. Arrivals rose and backlogs grew.
- By late 2024, hotel use had fallen but not enough to end reliance. This year’s uptick shows how sensitive the system is to small changes in arrivals, placements, and local action.
As the legal clock ticks in Epping, one reality frames every choice: there are people behind these numbers who need safe roofs, clear rules, and steady care. Whether the next move is set by ministers or by judges, that human standard—orderly, safe, and lawful—will decide if the path away from hotel use is workable in practice as well as on paper.
This Article in a Nutshell
A High Court order requires Bell Hotel residents to leave by September 12, sparking similar legal challenges from at least 18 councils. The Home Office is appealing and cautions that sudden closures risk destitution. Government plans to end hotel use by 2029 face capacity, safety and local-resistance obstacles, with London and Wethersfield central to current pressures.
