The government’s contentious use of hotels to house asylum seekers has reached a boiling point in Epping, Essex, after a High Court ruling ordered an end to migrant accommodation at the Bell Hotel. The decision, delivered last week, has triggered a flurry of legal maneuvers, political finger-pointing, and public protests, with the issue now reverberating across the UK as other councils consider similar legal challenges.
On August 22, 2025, the Home Office announced it would appeal the High Court’s refusal to allow it to intervene in the Epping case. The move comes after Epping Forest District Council successfully secured an interim injunction to halt the housing of asylum seekers at the Bell Hotel, owned by Somani Hotels Limited. The court ordered that the hotel be cleared of its 140 asylum-seeking occupants by 4:00 PM BST on September 12, 2025, granting a brief reprieve from the original 14-day clearance demand, according to Sky News and BBC.
The government, led by Home Secretary Yvette Cooper and Security Minister Dan Jarvis, insists that while it remains committed to closing all asylum hotels by the end of this parliament, such closures must be managed “in a properly managed way.” Cooper explained to BBC, “That is the reason for the Home Office appeal in this case, to ensure that going forward, the closure of all hotels can be done in a properly managed way right across the country.” Jarvis echoed these sentiments, telling broadcasters, “This government will close all asylum hotels and we will clear up the mess that we inherited from the previous government. We’ve made a commitment that we will close all of the asylum hotels by the end of this parliament, but we need to do that in a managed and ordered way.”
The Home Office’s bid to intervene in the Epping case was initially rejected by the court, prompting the department to seek permission to appeal. If successful, the government is expected to challenge the ruling itself, with a senior Home Office source describing the issue as a matter of democracy, arguing that the judiciary should not dictate where the government can house asylum seekers.
For its part, Epping Forest District Council argued that the Bell Hotel’s use as asylum accommodation breached planning regulations and posed a risk of "unprecedented levels of protest and disruption". The council warned that the hotel’s presence could further escalate community tensions and cause "irreparable harm to the local community," especially following a high-profile incident in which an asylum seeker at the hotel was charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl in the town. This incident has fueled protests, with thousands gathering near the Bell Hotel in recent weeks and local Conservative councillor Holly Whitbread describing the situation as "untenable." She told BBC, “The protests have caused a huge amount of disruption for the lives of normal people living in Epping, and it’s just not right that our community should have to put up with this further.”
The legal battle in Epping is far from an isolated case. According to an analysis by Sky News, at least 18 other councils are actively pursuing or considering similar legal challenges to block asylum hotels, including Labour-run Tamworth and Wirral. Conservative-run Broxbourne Council and Hillingdon Council are also exploring their options, while former Reform chairman Zia Yusuf confirmed that three councils under his party’s control are preparing to mount legal challenges. Paula Basnett, Labour leader of Wirral council, explained, “We are actively considering all options available to us to ensure that any use of hotels or other premises in Wirral is lawful and does not ride roughshod over planning regulations or the wishes of our communities.” Carol Dean, Labour leader of Tamworth Borough Council, added, “We are closely monitoring developments and reviewing our legal position.”
The political fallout has been swift and sharp. Shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick praised Epping’s protesters and council, writing in The Telegraph that "our country’s patience has snapped." Conservative shadow home secretary Chris Philp lambasted the government’s decision to appeal, stating, “Instead of trying to keep illegal immigrants in expensive hotels the Conservatives would immediately deport all illegal arrivals and ensure towns like Epping are never put in this position again.”
Meanwhile, the government faces growing pressure from both sides of the political spectrum. Kemi Badenoch, the Tory leader, urged councils to explore legal avenues, while Labour-controlled councils are also weighing their legal options. This cross-party disquiet reflects the rising public anxiety over the use of hotels for asylum accommodation—a system that, according to the latest government figures, now houses more than 32,000 asylum seekers, an 8% rise during Labour’s first year in office. The number of small boat crossings in the Channel has also surged by 38% over the previous 12 months, and asylum applications reached a record 111,000 in the year to June 2025, as reported by BBC.
The government is legally obligated to provide accommodation for asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute while their claims are processed. But the surge in arrivals and the resulting reliance on hotels have sparked anger in local communities, with many residents and officials citing strain on resources, disruption, and safety concerns. The Bell Hotel case has become a flashpoint, but it is emblematic of a broader national debate over immigration, community cohesion, and the limits of government and judicial authority.
In response to the Epping ruling, a wave of protests and counter-protests is expected outside asylum hotels across the UK in the coming days. Stand Up To Racism is preparing to hold counter-protests in cities including Bournemouth, Cardiff, and Leeds, with further demonstrations anticipated on Saturday. These gatherings reflect the deeply polarized public mood. Some residents, like Conservative councillor Holly Whitbread, argue that "our community can’t afford to wait another four years" for the government’s phased hotel closures. Others, including advocacy groups, warn against stoking division and urge for humane, lawful solutions.
Amid the heated rhetoric, the voices of asylum seekers themselves are often drowned out. One asylum seeker living at the Bell Hotel told BBC that the government should close the hotels and "let asylum seekers work so they can support themselves." This simple plea highlights the complex human realities behind the headlines—a reminder that, for all the legal wrangling and political posturing, real lives hang in the balance.
With more councils poised to follow Epping’s lead and the government pressing its appeal, the future of asylum hotel accommodation in the UK remains uncertain. What is clear, however, is that the debate is far from over. As the legal process unfolds and protests continue, the country faces difficult questions about how to balance its obligations, its communities’ concerns, and its values.
