Labour hit by migrant hotel chaos as councils seek legal bans

(EPPING FOREST) Epping Forest District Council won an interim High Court injunction on August 19, 2025, blocking the Home Office from placing asylum seekers at The Bell Hotel after nights of unrest that led to multiple arrests and police injuries. The decision has triggered a fast-moving wave of local challenges, with more councils weighing legal action and the Labour government facing fresh pressure to keep its pledge to end hotel use for asylum seekers by the end of the current parliament, expected in 2026.

Home Secretary Yvette Cooper sought to stop the removal of people from the site but was unsuccessful. She warned that more council injunctions could disrupt national policy and the Home Office’s legal duty to house destitute asylum seekers. Home Office minister Dan Jarvis said hotels are not the preferred solution and that officials are seeking alternatives, though he added that specific options will vary by location.

Legal ripple effects after the Epping ruling

The fallout spread quickly.

• On August 20, 2025, Broxbourne Borough Council said it is urgently seeking legal advice to pursue its own injunction against a four-star asylum hotel in Hertfordshire, citing Epping’s result as a model.
• South Norfolk District Council chose a different route: it will not seek an injunction, but is using planning rules to limit hotel use to families instead of single adult males, arguing that converting a hotel into a hostel would require a formal change of use.
• Reform UK leader Nigel Farage backed Epping’s stance and said the party’s dozen council groups would “do everything in their power” to follow suit.

The government’s stated goal remains to end hotel use for asylum seekers by 2026, yet the Epping injunction and the threat of more court actions have complicated that timeline. The Home Office says it is looking at “contingency options” and “alternative locations” for those removed from hotels, without listing specific sites, noting that solutions will differ by area.

Policy framework and official guidance

Key policy documents shape current practice:

• The Allocation of Asylum Accommodation Policy (Version 13, June 2025) sets out that accommodation is provided on a “no choice basis” to people who would otherwise be destitute, with exceptions only for serious health or safety risks.
• The policy stresses reducing hotel reliance by using non-detained sites, including former military barracks and vessels, and by increasing room sharing.

The policy is available on the UK government website: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/asylum-accommodation-requests-policy/allocation-of-asylum-accommodation-policy-accessible.

Data: scale, cost and trends

Data underline the strain on the system:

• National hotel share of asylum accommodation:
  • Q3 2023: 47%
  • Q4 2024: 37%
• London trend: hotel use rose to 65% by the end of 2024 and remained the highest in Q1 2025.
• Cost differences:
  • In 2024–25, hotels cost the government on average six times more than other types of asylum accommodation.
  • The Home Office reports the average nightly rate per hotel guest fell from £162 to £119 between April 2024 and March 2025, due to higher occupancy and lower negotiated rates.

As of March 2025, few asylum seekers were living in large alternative sites such as former military barracks; most remained in hotels or dispersed housing.

Human impact and policy stakes

The Epping injunction sets a legal precedent that could encourage more councils to take the Home Office to court, producing a patchwork of local bans and forcing case-by-case workarounds.

The Home Office argues such injunctions risk interfering with its statutory duty to house those who are destitute, raising the chance of both legal and humanitarian challenges.

Protests around asylum hotels have grown, with arrests and injuries reported in several incidents. That has added pressure on national and local leaders to calm tensions and find stable housing.

Immediate effects on asylum seekers

For people seeking safety, the stakes are immediate:

• Many asylum seekers have faced long journeys and now face sudden moves as councils fight hotel placements.
• Because accommodation is offered on a “no choice basis,” a person can be moved quickly if a site becomes unavailable.
• That instability can disrupt:
  • access to health care
  • legal advice
  • schooling for children

South Norfolk’s approach—focusing on families rather than single men—illustrates how local rules can shape who ends up where, creating further uncertainty for single adults.

Local reactions and division

Local residents and councils are split:

• Some leaders, such as those in Broxbourne, view injunctions as a necessary tool to manage local pressures.
• Others prefer planning controls and negotiation to shape hotel use.
• Community views vary:
  • Some oppose hotels due to worries about safety or strain on local services.
  • Others call for more humane, stable homes for people who have fled war or persecution.

The Migration Observatory notes that, although national hotel use has fallen, regional gaps—especially in London and the South East—threaten to derail central goals if not addressed.

Government options and constraints

Ministers want to move people into alternative, non-hotel sites, including former military bases and vessels, and expand dispersed housing. However:

• By March 2025, the number of people actually living in large alternative sites remained small.
• Costs, while decreasing, remain high compared with other housing models.
• Cooper and Jarvis both say ending hotel use requires more capacity elsewhere, which will demand:
  • time
  • funding
  • cooperation from local authorities—many of which are increasingly ready to go to court

According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, the Epping case is a test of how far local authorities can shape asylum housing, and whether central government can balance local worries with national duties at scale. Legal experts warn that if more injunctions are granted, the result may be a less predictable system, with emergency moves and higher costs as the Home Office shifts people around at short notice.

What happens next

What comes next will likely be decided in courtrooms and council chambers across England.

• More councils are expected to seek advice on injunctions, especially where protests have flared or hotel use remains high.
• The Home Office is under pressure to speed up the rollout of alternatives but faces practical limits:
  • finding suitable sites
  • funding them
  • ensuring services (health, schooling, legal support) can support new arrivals

For now, The Bell Hotel stands as a marker of the country’s uneasy balance between national asylum policy and local control. Epping Forest District Council argues the injunction protects public order. The Home Office says it needs flexibility to meet its legal duties. Each new case will test that balance again, while thousands of people—families, single adults, and children—wait to find out where they will sleep next.