(UNITED KINGDOM) Legal efforts to shut down asylum hotels have largely stalled, with recent UK court decisions and fresh government guidance signaling that closures will be rare and hard to sustain. In August 2025, Epping Forest District Council secured a High Court injunction to stop a hotel from housing asylum seekers after the operator failed to notify the council of a change of use under planning rules. That order was overturned on appeal, a result that lawyers say reflects judicial caution about interrupting an already stretched national system.
A full hearing is expected in autumn 2025, but for now the appeals ruling limits councils’ ability to rely on planning law to block asylum hotels. The Home Office has warned local authorities that allowing widespread injunctions could break the national accommodation network, since multiple councils might seek similar orders at once. Officials describe hotels as “contingency accommodation,” used when dispersal housing is not available.
This stance, paired with the appeals decision, sends a clear near-term message: legal action is unlikely to close asylum hotels at scale.
UK policy and the dispersal model
Under UK government policy, ministers have committed to end hotel use by 2029, pushing a full-dispersal model that’s been in place since May 2023. The model requires every local authority to house people seeking asylum in proportion to its population size.
The objectives are to:
- Cut hotel costs.
- Reduce long stays in places designed for short visits.
- Move away from ad hoc hotel procurement toward broader sharing of responsibility across England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.
According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, the shift represents a systemic move to share responsibility nationally rather than rely on temporary hotel arrangements.
Practical challenges and criticisms
Critics note that hotels remain widely used because dispersal capacity still falls short. The Home Office has invested in large sites such as the former military base in Wethersfield, Essex as alternatives to hotels. These large sites have drawn criticism over:
- Cost
- Isolation
- Living standards
Attempts in 2023 to exempt asylum accommodation from national housing standards were rejected amid warnings that a separate rule set would create a “two-tier” system.
Local councils say their hands are tied. They can:
- Raise concerns about suitability
- Insist on basic safety checks
- Seek community consultation
But they have limited power to refuse placements outright. After the appeal that lifted the Epping Forest injunction, council leaders warn they have even fewer tools to stop new hotel use, aside from negotiating conditions with the Home Office and providers.
Human impact in hotels
People living in asylum hotels highlight significant human costs. Residents report:
- Cramped rooms
- Families split across corridors or floors
- Curfews that feel restrictive
Charities report mental health strain, isolation, and harassment risks. Caseworkers say hotel residents often miss school placements, GP registration, and legal advice due to frequent moves. While the government insists hotels are a last resort, continued reliance means many people face uncertainty and stress while waiting for dispersal.
“Long hotel stays put families and single people under prolonged strain — from disrupted schooling to barriers accessing healthcare and legal support.”
Canada’s approach: funded transition away from hotels
The legal picture is less contested in Canada, where Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) continues to use hotels but is actively funding a transition away from them.
Key figures as of March 2025:
- 1,474 individuals in 7 active hotels across Quebec and Ontario
- $66.6 million secured to maintain operations through September 30, 2025
Ottawa describes the approach as interim housing and relocation, moving claimants to more permanent homes and connecting them to jobs and schools. Provinces, including Newfoundland and Labrador, have agreed to relocate groups — plans in early 2025 called for moving about 50 people as part of a broader effort. The program’s intake window has officially closed, but some provinces are still developing voluntary relocation proposals to keep momentum going.
Canada’s model emphasizes:
- Fixed short-term funding
- Municipal and provincial cooperation
- Use of non-profit partners to speed integration
Officials say the approach reduces hotel bills and helps claimants settle faster. However, when the intake window closed, some cities warned that without fresh funding and housing stock, relocations could slow.
Shared problem: supply vs. demand
Both countries face the same basic issue: demand outstrips affordable housing supply.
- UK: Dispersal placements lag despite the shared model.
- Canada: Steady arrivals and tight rental markets slow transitions out of hotels.
The cost and controversy are constant: hotels are expensive and often ill-suited for long stays, yet remain the stopgap when no other bed is available.
What each side says they need
The Home Office argues ending asylum hotels by 2029 depends on:
- More dispersal housing
- Better throughput in the asylum system
- Steady funding to convert and manage local properties
Councils ask for:
- More say over placements
- Resources for schools, GP surgeries, and social care
NGOs want:
- Faster moves into community housing
- More legal support
- Better safeguarding for families and single women
All parties agree that long hotel stays should end; the debate is over pace and practical steps.
What to watch next
Canada’s strategy will be tested by whether the current budget can carry people fully into stable homes through September 30, 2025, and whether provinces and municipalities continue to volunteer relocation capacity.
In the UK, the autumn hearing will matter more for legal clarity than for instant change. Possible outcomes:
- Court narrows planning routes councils use — this would:
- Place more weight on UK government policy and operational choices
- Reinforce the 2029 timeline
- Intensify pressure to expand dispersal and invest in community housing
- Court leaves a narrow path for targeted injunctions (e.g., clear safety grounds) — this would allow councils to press specific cases.
The broader message since August is that courts are wary of rulings that could ripple across the national system.
Why the calendar matters for people
- For families, faster dispersal can mean moving from a single room to a flat near a school.
- For single adults, quicker moves can mean earlier access to work support and steadier healthcare access.
- For councils, predictable placements, funding for wraparound services, and community engagement are key to reducing tension and building support.
Readers can follow UK policy updates on asylum support and accommodation through the UK Home Office asylum accommodation collection: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/asylum-support.
Officials say they will continue to scale dispersal and use hotels only as needed. For now, the law offers few shortcuts. The practical route out of asylum hotels runs through more housing, faster case decisions, and closer cooperation between central government, councils, and communities.
Frequently Asked Questions
This Article in a Nutshell
UK legal challenges to asylum hotels have largely stalled after an August 2025 injunction against a hotel in Epping Forest was reversed on appeal. The ruling, coupled with Home Office guidance labeling hotels as contingency accommodation, limits councils’ ability to close hotels using planning law; a full hearing is due in autumn 2025. The UK government aims to eliminate hotels by 2029 through a full-dispersal system introduced in May 2023, but dispersal capacity, funding and housing supply lag. Residents report cramped conditions, disrupted schooling and mental health strains. By contrast, Canada is funding a time-limited transition out of hotels, with 1,474 people in seven hotels and $66.6 million secured through September 30, 2025. The core issue in both countries is demand outstripping affordable housing supply; progress depends on more housing, faster case decisions and closer cooperation among governments, councils and NGOs.
