(UNITED KINGDOM) Asylum seekers in the United Kingdom will be banned from using taxis for most medical appointments from February 2026, under a new policy announced by Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood on 29 November 2025. The rule will apply across the country and will affect thousands of people in the asylum system who currently rely on paid transport to reach doctors, hospitals, and specialist treatment.
What the new rule requires
Under the change, asylum seekers will no longer be allowed to use taxis for routine medical journeys and will be expected instead to travel mainly by public buses or other low‑cost transport. The Home Office has told all service providers that they must stop booking taxis for standard medical trips from February, marking a sharp shift in how people in asylum accommodation can reach healthcare.
The government says taxi use will not disappear entirely but will be tightly restricted.
Only “exceptional, evidence‑based” cases will qualify, and even then taxi journeys will need advance approval from the Home Office. Officials have indicated that such cases may include people with:
- Clear physical disabilities
- Pregnancy‑related needs
- Serious or long‑term illnesses
- Other rare situations where public transport is clearly not suitable
Why the policy is being introduced
The new rules follow a BBC investigation that exposed widespread use of taxis to transport asylum seekers to medical appointments, sometimes over very long distances and at high cost to taxpayers. Examples from that investigation include:
- An asylum seeker driven about 250 miles in a taxi to attend a GP appointment, at a cost to the Home Office of £600.
- A taxi sent from Gatwick to Reading to pick up an asylum seeker who then needed to travel just 1.5 miles from his hotel to a local appointment.
Drivers interviewed for the BBC said parts of the system were open to abuse, with some sub‑contractors allegedly inflating mileage and dispatching vehicles from far away for very short trips. Those findings raised questions about how transport contracts were managed and whether stronger oversight could have reduced costs without directly restricting asylum seekers’ access to taxis.
Current transport provision and costs
At present, asylum seekers receive funding for one return bus pass per week, which is meant to cover basic local travel needs. When extra medical appointments were required beyond what that bus allowance could reasonably cover, taxis were often arranged and paid for through Home Office contracts.
Key figures:
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Weekly bus pass | One return bus pass per week provided to asylum seekers |
| Annual taxi spend (cited) | About $21 million a year on taxi services for asylum seekers |
Ministers have been under pressure to cut this spending, and officials cite the BBC findings as justification for the policy change.
Practical concerns and likely impacts
The Home Office has not yet released detailed operational guidance to the public, but the broad outline is clear: routine medical trips will no longer justify taxi use, and people will be pushed toward buses even when they:
- May be unfamiliar with local routes
- Speak little English
- Are placed in areas with limited transport links
Analysis by VisaVerge.com frames the announcement as part of a wider government push to reduce what ministers describe as “additional costs” in the asylum system, while responding to media criticism over spending on hotel accommodation and transport.
For many people in the asylum process, however, the change may feel less like a cost‑saving measure and more like a barrier to care. Typical issues include:
- Asylum seekers being housed in areas they did not choose and sometimes moved with little notice
- Being placed far from hospitals or specialist clinics where they receive ongoing treatment
- People with established relationships with doctors suddenly needing to attend appointments in another city (chemotherapy, mental health counselling, pregnancy check‑ups)
Campaigners warn that without taxis, some journeys will become extremely hard, especially for people who are:
- Weak from treatment
- In late stages of pregnancy
- Living with serious disabilities
Even when bus routes exist, trips that take 20 minutes in a taxi can become multi‑stage bus journeys involving long walks, changes at busy interchanges, and extended standing. In rural or semi‑rural areas, buses may run only once an hour, if at all.
“The bar for exceptions could be set so high that many people who genuinely need help with transport will not qualify.”
— Enver Solomon, chief executive of the Refugee Council
Enver Solomon has also raised concerns about how vulnerability will be assessed in practice, noting that Home Office decision‑makers and contractors can interpret guidance very differently. That could result in inconsistent treatment depending on where asylum seekers are housed and who handles their case.
Concerns from charities, health professionals, and service providers
Charities working with asylum seekers already report people missing medical appointments because they:
- Cannot afford extra travel
- Do not fully understand how to use local bus systems
There are fears the taxi restrictions will intensify these problems and place additional pressure on overstretched NHS services when patients fail to attend booked slots. Clinicians treating refugees and asylum seekers have warned that missed appointments can lead to:
- Interrupted cancer treatment
- Unmanaged chronic conditions
- Relapse in mental health cases such as PTSD
Providers that currently arrange transport will need clear criteria from the Home Office on what counts as “exceptional” and what evidence will be required—particularly in urgent or fast‑moving medical situations. There is concern that lengthy approval processes could delay care, especially for sudden hospital visits or complications in pregnancy and long‑term illness.
Legal rights and practical access
People seeking asylum are entitled to access the NHS under existing rules, and government guidance on healthcare and asylum support is published on the official website at https://www.gov.uk/asylum-support. However, having a right to treatment on paper does not guarantee that a person can physically reach the clinic or hospital—particularly if they are placed far away, have no car, low income, and limited English.
Political and public debate
The taxi ban for most medical appointments is likely to become another frontline issue in the broader debate over how the United Kingdom treats people who arrive to claim asylum.
- Supporters argue the measure is a justified effort to control public spending and clamp down on perceived waste or mismanagement.
- Opponents say it saves money on paper while shifting costs onto vulnerable people in the form of missed care, worsened health, and increased stress.
What to watch before February 2026
As the policy takes effect, several practical questions remain:
- Will the Home Office publish detailed operational guidance and clear, consistent criteria for exceptions?
- How quickly will approval decisions be made in urgent medical situations?
- Will asylum seekers with clear medical needs be able to access taxis where buses are not a realistic option?
- How will regional differences in contractor interpretation be monitored to avoid uneven treatment?
As February 2026 approaches, asylum seekers, health workers, and support groups will be watching closely to see how strictly the Home Office applies its exception rules and whether people with clear medical needs can still access taxis when buses are simply not a realistic option.
The Home Office will ban most taxi journeys for asylum seekers’ routine medical appointments from February 2026, directing people to public buses and low‑cost transport. The policy responds to a BBC investigation and aims to cut about $21 million in annual taxi costs. Taxis will remain available only for exceptional, evidence‑based cases with advance approval—for disabilities, pregnancy-related needs, or serious illnesses. Charities and clinicians warn the change could impede access to care, cause missed appointments, and worsen health outcomes without clear operational guidance.
