Why The Row Over Housing Asylum Seekers Could Be About To Come To A Head

Today could end up being a pivotal moment in the debate around how the UK manages asylum seekers.

The Court of Appeal is expected to announce its decision on whether to overturn the injunction which called for all immigrants to be removed from Epping’s Bell Hotel this afternoon.

While there’s still a chance the complicated case could be postponed, the highly-anticipated ruling – whenever it is announced – could be a landmark moment in this highly-divisive topic.

Here’s what you need to know.

What happened? 

Ongoing anti-immigration sentiment escalated earlier this summer, when one of the 138 asylum seekers being housed at the Epping facility – Hadush Kebatu – was charged with the sexual assault of a 14-year-old girl. He is on trial and denies wrongdoing.

The incident sparked local anti-immigration protests outside the hotel, which were soon met with counter-demonstrations and significant police intervention.

National interest in the protests soon rose, with politicians like Reform UK’s Nigel Farage publicly siding with those calling for the asylum seekers to be removed.

Amid all the furore, Epping Forest District Council declared that using the hotel to house asylum seekers breached planning laws – and the High Court ruled in its favour.

Mr Justice Eyre announced that all asylum seekers had to be removed from the hotel by 4pm on September 12.

The Home Office and the Bell Hotel subsequently challenged the ruling in a day-long appeal hearing on Thursday.

The Court of Appeal will announce its final decision on Friday afternoon.

Why does this case matter?

Labour actually pledged to stop the use of asylum hotels altogether by the end of this parliament (2029 or before, depending on when the next election is called).

However, this week the home secretary Yvette Cooper found herself mounting a legal appeal to stop the closure of such a hotel – and revealing why they are so vital in the process.

Meanwhile, the pressure on the government to resolve this issue is growing, especially since the number of people crossing the Channel has only increased this year.

More than 28,000 migrants crossing the Channel so far this year, a 50% increase compared to this time last year – a record high.

What was the Home Office’s case?

The government argued the hotels were a key part of the UK’s asylum system.

Its lawyers said that closing the hotels quickly would risk breaching the home secretary’s statutory duty to the human rights of asylum seekers under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Edward Brown KC said the case “runs the risk of acting as an impetus for further protests, some of which may be disorderly, around other asylum accommodation”.

The Bell Hotel’s owner Somani Hotels also argued that the injunction could create a “precedent” where other councils follow suit – even if there’s nowhere else appropriate for the asylum seekers to go.

The Home Office also said that the council had not identified a “significant planning concern” at the hotel – and said it would face “considerable difficulties” in accommodating the men at the hotel without it.

What was the council’s case?

Epping Forest District Council asked for an injunction after weeks of public protests on the grounds that the hotel – typically used for weddings and conferences – arguing it breached planning rules to use it for asylum accommodation. 

The council also said that there was no “compelling reason” for the appeal bid to go through.

How much do they rely on using asylum hotels?

The government is very reliant on using asylum hotels to house people while their claims are being processed.

The Home Office even admitted in their written evidence to the court that the increase in small boat crossings this year had forced the government to use such hotels again.

The Bell Hotel used to house asylum seekers between May 2020 and March 2021, and again from October 2022 to April 2024.

Labour reopened it for asylum seekers back in April 2025.

The government has not outlined clear alternatives, but they could revert to putting them up in flats and houses, including properties rented from private landlords and social housing providers.

But, that might not go down so well with the electorate in the middle of a housing crisis.

What would happen if they lose?

Dozens of local authorities, including Labour ones, have said they are willing to start similar legal proceedings particularly if the government fails to win their appeal.

But Labour argues that this will be a “chaotic and disorderly approach” to ending the use of asylum hotels, instead preferring to do so in a “managed way”.

It might also mean more protests, which the Home Office claimed was a “material factor” in the judge’s decision to impose an injunction on the Bell Hotel in the first place.

It could also encourage those who seek to target asylum accommodation in acts of public disorder, according to the government’s lawyers.

Government officials will have everything crossed today that they managed to sway the court of appeal, and dampen the fires of anti-immigration sentiment for at least a short while longer...