UK minister warns immediate hotel closures could push migrants into destitution

The UK government is pressing ahead with plans to close asylum hotels, while ministers concede that an immediate closure could push thousands into homelessness. On 29 August 2025 the government won a legal appeal allowing continued use of hotels for asylum seekers, overturning a previous ruling that would have blocked the practice. That court decision, paired with fresh Home Office commitments to speed up closures, sets the stage for a tense final stretch: cutting hotel use fast while trying to avoid people “living destitute in the streets.”

Officials say the number of asylum hotels has dropped sharply over the past two years, from more than 400 in summer 2023 to fewer than 210 by late August 2025. The Home Office has signalled a “big surge” in closures through the end of the year, with at least five more hotels expected to shut by December. The stated goal is to end the use of asylum hotels by the end of the current parliament, expected by 2026. At the same time, ministers warn that closing every site at once—an “immediate closure”—would be unsafe without alternative places ready, given the risk of rough sleeping, exploitation, and pressure on local services.

The Home Office said: “Since taking office, we have taken immediate action to fix the asylum system and have started closing down hotels and returning more than 35,000 people with no right to be here… We want all hotels closed by the end of this parliament.” Critics counter that moving too slowly also causes harm, keeping families stuck in cramped rooms and making hotels flashpoints for protests.

Policy pace and legal landscape

The 29 August ruling effectively gives the government legal room to continue using hotels while other accommodation comes online. Advocacy groups acknowledge the ruling but argue the policy debate is now about pace and safety.

• the Refugee Council says the original plan to end hotel use by 2029 was far too slow and supports bringing the deadline forward to March 2026.
• Its new proposal suggests a targeted, one-off grant of limited leave to remain for people from Afghanistan, Eritrea, Iran, Sudan, and Syria—countries with very high grant rates or where returns are not realistic. That could help move an estimated 32,917 people (around 40% of hotel residents) into mainstream housing more quickly.

Enver Solomon, the Refugee Council’s chief executive, argues it is “irresponsible” to keep hotels open when other options exist and urges ministers to adopt a pragmatic, humanitarian approach to cut hotel use faster. Opposition politicians and other advocacy groups say hotels have become “flashpoints for far-right activity,” fuelling tensions and “driving communities apart.” Some political figures on the right call for tougher deterrence and mass removals; others accuse ministers of chaos and treating towns as “dumping grounds.”

The latest court outcome does not settle these disputes. It simply maintains the legal ability to use hotels until there is enough capacity elsewhere.

Quantitative indicators

• Number of hotels: from >400 (summer 2023) to <210 (late Aug 2025).
• Hotel resident rise: 8% increase in the first half of 2025, showing the gap between decision-making and move-on capacity.
• London: around 65% of asylum seekers were in hotel accommodation as of Q1 2025.
• Cost: hotel use cost nearly £9 million per day in 2023; current costs are said to be lower but still high.

The Migration Observatory (Oxford) notes hotels are costly, often unsuitable for long stays, and have become targets for protests. But it warns that alternatives are not yet large enough to absorb the current population. The National Audit Office reports that large-scale sites, including former military bases, have proved more expensive than expected and face operational hurdles and local resistance. Councils echo this: every closure must be matched with actual places for people to go, or pressure simply moves to the streets, day shelters, and overstretched charities.

Human impact and the search for alternatives

The human stakes are immediate. Families describe months—sometimes more than a year—spent in one room, with children missing stable routines and parents unable to cook their own meals. A sudden shutdown would not free them from hardship; it could swap cramped rooms for bus stations and tent lines.

Ministers say that is why any “immediate closure” of asylum hotels is not on the table. But survivors of trafficking and torture, and families with infants, also say waiting years for the system to catch up is unacceptable. Policymakers must strike a balance in the coming months.

Dispersal accommodation and practical challenges

The Home Office is expanding dispersal accommodation, where every local authority is required to host asylum seekers in line with its population size. Councils, however, point to:

• A lack of available rental properties
• Rising rents and costs
• Community pressures and local resistance

Where large sites were tried, they often drew protests and produced legal disputes over planning and environmental rules. The National Audit Office’s findings suggest these big sites may cost more than hotels in practice, especially when security, transport, and healthcare costs are added.

The Refugee Council’s targeted status proposal

Advocacy groups say a targeted status scheme could help. The Refugee Council’s August proposal would grant limited leave to remain—subject to security checks using existing Home Office data—to people from five countries with high recognition rates or where returns are not feasible. Supporters say this would:

• Cut hotel numbers quickly by enabling lawful work and access to mainstream housing
• Ease costs by ending long-term contingency use of hotels
• Reduce flashpoints that have triggered local tensions and protests

Critics worry such a scheme could draw more arrivals or be seen as an amnesty. Backers respond it would be a one-off measure, aligned with existing grant rates, and would restore control to a system struggling since the pandemic-era backlog.

How the system currently works

• Step 1: People claim asylum.
• Step 2: If standard dispersal housing is unavailable, they are placed in hotels as a contingency.
• Step 3: The Home Office processes claims.
  • Those found not to need protection face removal.
  • Those who get protection are moved to dispersal accommodation as space allows or wait in hotels for a decision.

The August court ruling allows the department to keep using hotels for now, which officials say is essential while new capacity is built. For guidance on accommodation support, the government’s official information is available at Asylum support: what you’ll get.

According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, the legal win on 29 August buys the government time to balance closure targets with the need for safe move-on routes. But time alone does not add beds. Councils say they need funding and a steady pipeline of properties. Charities call for clear “move-on” plans so people granted protection can enter the private rental market quickly, rather than remain stuck in hotels because they cannot find housing or secure deposits.

Three operational choices shaping the months ahead

1. Pace of closures
   • The Home Office wants all hotels shut by the end of this parliament.
   • Advocacy groups push for a faster timeline—March 2026—but warn speed without safety nets could mean more street homelessness.
2. Decision-making and move-on
   • Faster decisions only help if matched with housing pathways. Otherwise, people shift from backlog to limbo.
3. Status and returns
   • A one-off, targeted leave scheme could empty a large share of asylum hotels quickly.
   • Without it, pressure falls on dispersal alone, which is already stretched.

Important: If a hotel closes without a plan for each resident, pressure typically moves to food banks, church halls, and charity night buses. Abrupt closures can push tensions to parks, transport hubs, and hospital waiting rooms. Public health officials warn about disease risks if people sleep rough after living in crowded settings.

Police forces report that protests around asylum hotels have strained resources and stirred local fear. Closing sites will ease that in some places, but abrupt closures may simply change where harm shows up.

Legal backdrop and next steps

The legal backdrop remains fluid even after August’s appeal victory. Further challenges could arise around specific sites or local implementation. Yet most parties share a broad aim: end long-term hotel use. The argument is about how to get there—how quickly, and with what safeguards.

Ministers say the hotel closures now underway are proof the plan is on track. The Refugee Council says a one-off status measure is the only way to cut hotel use fast enough without mass homelessness.

For people inside the system, uncertainty is the thread that runs through it all. Examples include:

• A Sudanese father with two school-age children may spend months in a hotel waiting for a decision, then face a scramble to find a landlord who will accept a new-status tenant with limited savings.
• A young Afghan who fled the Taliban may receive status but lack move-on support, risking a step from hotel room to street.

Frontline caseworkers say these stories are common—and preventable—if closures are paired with clear timelines, legal routes to work, and practical help with housing.

As the government accelerates the shutdown of asylum hotels into late 2025, the key test will be whether closures steer residents toward stable homes or simply change the location of hardship. The court’s ruling gives the Home Office legal space to keep hotels open while alternatives grow, but that space will narrow as political pressure rises and more sites shut.

The next announcements—on dispersal capacity, funding for councils, and any decision on the Refugee Council’s one-off leave proposal—will indicate whether the final push to end hotel use by 2026 can avoid an immediate-closure cliff that leaves people on the streets.