When Rajeev spoke to a Home Office official on Monday about the case lodged by Epping Forest, “they were quite relaxed”, he tells me. “That changed the next day when the verdict came out.”
He explains that the challenge centred around the argument that the owners changed the purpose of their hotel without informing the local council. The hotel had first changed into an asylum hotel, which was used to house asylum seeking families; then it changed again to an asylum hotel housing young men. The council argued this occurred without planning permission.
Rajeev says the Home Office is right to be worried as the ruling has significant implications. “The 140 people staying in this hotel, unless there’s a successful challenge, have to be moved out on 12 September at 4pm.
“It shows that if a council challenges the use of the hotel in similar fashion, it could take just a month from the start of the challenge to getting people out. And if lots of councils managed to do that, it could land the Home Office with the job of rehousing thousands of people at short notice.”
But how did we end up here in the first place, with hotels as the main form of housing for so many asylum seekers?
How did we get into this mess?
In 2020, the number of asylum seekers housed in hotels was about 1,200. By 2023, more than 55,000 people seeking asylum (pdf) were living in them. The number has since fallen from that peak to about 30,000.
The uptick stems from a ban on asylum seekers working, which was implemented in 2003, following criticism from the rightwing press that migrants were taking jobs from British people. Perhaps counterintuitively, this resulted in the government becoming legally obligated to provide accommodation for asylum seekers who, without the right to work, would otherwise end up on the streets.
This is not exclusive to migrants. Councils must support Britons and other residents who are destitute and come forward as homeless. Asylum seekers who are housed and fed by the government receive £10 a week in spending money.
The use of hotels specifically is another problem passed over from the previous government. As journalist Daniel Trilling explains in this informative piece, accommodation was once largely provided by local councils’ housing departments, but this was privatised during the Cameron-Clegg coalition government’s austerity drive. Privately run asylum accommodation then became the subject of growing scandals, with allegations that much of it was unfit for human habitation. Slowly, the government became increasingly reliant on hotels and other forms of short-term housing.
This shift coincided with the Conservative government’s failed attempt to rewrite asylum law. Ministers sought to make it illegal to apply for asylum after arriving through irregular routes, such as crossing the Channel in small boats, by stipulating that applicants would be deported to Rwanda.
Conservatives now claim that this crisis is unfolding because Labour removed the Rwanda policy, which was meant to act as a deterrent. Rajeev disagrees. “There was no proof that Rwanda proved to be a deterrent. The numbers of people coming over increased over those three years, before Rishi Sunak left office,” he says. “Over that period, the numbers of people in hotels went up.”
What are the options?
The options facing the Home Office now – if hotels are suddenly forced to stop housing asylum seekers – are politically toxic.
“They come down to putting people in flats or houses, in what’s known as multiple occupancy housing (HMOs), or in large-scale sites such as barracks,” Rajeev says.
But using that kind of accommodation for asylum seekers has also sparked protests. This month, plans to house 35 families in flats above local shops in Waterlooville, in Hampshire, have been scrapped after more than 1,000 residents gathered for an anti-immigrant protest, calling on the government to “stop the boats”. Critics also argue the policy risks adding further strain to the rental market, where competition for housing is already intense and rents have risen sharply.
“Barracks come with political implications too. When Labour were in opposition, they were critical of barracks,” Rajeev says. The Bibby Stockholm, a converted barge in Portland, Dorset, was decommissioned in November 2024 by the Labour government after safety concerns and protests.
That said, Rajeev adds, this hasn’t stopped the government quietly expanding the use of Wethersfield, an airbase in Essex, as a place to house asylum seekers.
The government could still win on appeal against Epping’s decision, arguing that the issue is national in scope and that its wider implications must be taken into account, Rajeev explains. “If they win, they can breathe a sigh of relief. But even if they do, this weekend will see demonstrations.”
So even if this specific decision is overturned, the political damage is already done.
Why is Labour on the back foot?
Labour came into office promising to “take back control” of the asylum system, a message aimed at reassuring voters worried about immigration and at blunting attacks from the right.
By the government’s own measures, it can point to results. The number of hotels used to house asylum seekers has halved in the year since Labour took power. The backlog of asylum applications has also fallen from its record highs, with ministers boasting that the rate of processing is up by 116% and that the UK has removed more people with no right to remain than at any point in the past five years. The government has also signed returns agreements with Iraq, Albania and Vietnam, and launched a pilot “one in, one out” scheme with France.
“It’s tough on Home Office ministers who have made some progress over the last year, but then, like previous Home Office ministers, they just get terribly battered by events,” Rajeev says.
“It remains a mess and a huge headache for Yvette Cooper, who has been the chair of the home affairs select committee and shadow home secretary. She knows this job inside out. Angela Eagle is also a very experienced minister who understands how this works.
“Diana Johnson, who’s the policing minister, also has a strong track record, as does Jess Phillips. They’re all people who have a great record of actually getting things done and doing it well.”
But by defining success so heavily in terms of enforcement and deterrence, Labour has aligned firmly with the right on immigration; leaving the party exposed if numbers rise again or critics demand tougher measures.
“They’ve really failed to launch any kind of narrative as to why refugees and asylum seekers bring something good to Britain,” says Rajeev.
Because of that, the debate remains in Reform’s preferred territory: a fight about who can be toughest on immigration, rather than a contest on Labour’s own terms.
