Asylum seekers can stay at Epping hotel after government overturns court ruling

The government has won an appeal against the decision to remove asylum seekers living at The Bell Hotel in Epping that has been at the centre of asylum hotel protests over the summer.

A High Court ruling on 19 August brought in an injunction that meant all 138 asylum seekers would be removed from The Bell Hotel in Epping on 12 September.

Epping Forest District Council successfully challenged the Home Office, introducing a temporary injunction to block asylum seekers from staying at the hotel, which has become the focal point of anti-immigration protests and unrest in recent weeks.

But that injunction was overturned at the Court Appeal on Friday (29 August) with judges arguing that the original decision had failed to take into account that the original court order could encourage protests.

That injunction only acted as a temporary pause and a final decision on the matter is set to be made in the court in October.

Following the ruling, an Epping Forest District Council statement said the local authority was “deeply disappointed” by the decision but warned “the battle is not over”.

“Epping Forest has already given the Home Office much cause for reflection,” the statement read. “We understand government faces a dilemma but that should not be at the expense of local communities. Planning law may seem dull. It might seem boring. But it goes to the heart of the relationship between local communities and good government. It enshrines the rights of local people to have a say within their own communities and it should not be set aside lightly.

“The government can still listen. It needs to understand and take responsibility for the events that have taken place in Epping over the past 6 weeks. For the trauma and disruption brought upon our community. The battle is not over, and we will continue the fight – it is nothing less than the people of Epping would expect and deserve.”

Enver Solomon, chief executive of Refugee Council, said: “The government may have been successful in its appeal today but the reality is that the use of hotels to house people seeking asylum is untenable – and waiting until 2029 to end their use is no longer an option.

“Our new analysis sets out a clear alternative: a targeted, ‘one-off’ scheme granting temporary permission to stay, subject to rigorous security checks, for people from countries where most are almost certain to be recognised as refugees. This would mean hotels could be closed as soon as next year.     

“As long as hotels remain open, they will continue to be flashpoints for protests, fuelling division and leaving people who have fled war and persecution feeling unsafe. Through our frontline work we see how refugees housed in neighbourhoods, rather than isolated in hotels, are able to rebuild their lives, enter training or work, and contribute to the local economy.  

“This situation is not business as usual, so it can’t be solved with business-as-usual thinking. A pragmatic reset is needed. By implementing this one-off scheme, the government can cut costs, restore order to the asylum system, and protect both refugees and the communities they live in.”

The original decision posed a headache for the Home Office which will now need to find alternative accommodation for the people living in the hotel. The ruling saw as many as 80 councils around England state they were considering taking similar legal action against the government to remove asylum seekers from hotels in their area.

Legal expert Victoria Searle, principal associate in the government team at UK and Ireland law firm Browne Jacobson, said the latest ruling may dissuade local authorities from taking action.

“The Court of Appeal’s judgment reaffirms our view that local authorities should exercise caution and consider the wider implications of pursuing similar action, including for their own use of hotels, and bed and breakfast accommodation, to house the vulnerable – including the homeless and those without recourse to public funds on account of their immigration status,” said Searle.

“With the UK facing a severe social housing shortage and local authorities experiencing unprecedented pressure on their homelessness services, a long-term and sustainable solution to these challenges is required nationally. This will inevitably require close co-operation between all branches of government.

“Local authorities and central government alike are looking for solutions to the problem of accommodating vulnerable people in costly and potentially unsuitable hotel accommodation.

“We are seeing increased innovation in this area, and are working with many local authorities to grow their long-term supply of suitable housing, thereby reducing their own use of costly, nightly-let hotel and bed and breakfast accommodation.”

Read more:

• From Southport to Epping, social media’s failure to act is fuelling racist violence
• Home Office halves time for new refugees to find a home in move ‘guaranteed to increase
• Nigel Farage’s mass deportation plan would make life worse for every single Brit

But the home secretary Yvette Cooper appealed the decision alongside The Bell Hotel owner Somani Hotels. Their argument was that the ruling risked creating more protests and disorder and setting a precedent that could see the loss of accommodation for asylum seekers, despite the Home Office’s legal duties to house them.

Meanwhile, the council argued that the use of the hotel to house asylum seekers breached the planning permission granted to the premises.

The Bell Hotel in Epping has become the epicentre of asylum hotel protests over the summer after an asylum seeker living at the hotel was charged in connection with a sexual assault on a 14-year-old girl. Hadush Kebatu, who appeared in court this week, denies the charges.

The temporary injunction granted in the High Court largely centred on the use of the hotel to house asylum seekers and how that differed from its original purpose.

“Even though the actual ruling was about planning permission – because that’s what explains everything in British politics – most people will not read the details,” Colm Murphy, politics expert at Queen Mary University of London told Big Issue after the initial ruling.

There is widespread agreement that hotels are unsuitable to house people while they await a decision on their asylum claim.

Some have called for solutions such as letting asylum seekers work while they await a decision or funding accommodation that can later be used for social rent homes.

Faraz Baber, from planning consultancy Lanpro, suggested that the government should tweak planning rules to prevent other local authorities from getting wrapped up in legal action they may be unlikely to win.

Why are asylum hotels controversial?

All sides of the debate agree on one thing: hotels are not fit for housing people coming to the UK for asylum after fleeing their native country.

But hotels are used due to a lack of other options where to house people and other solutions, such as the Bibby Stockholm barge have proved unworkable due to costs and safety of the people it was housing.

The Labour government has pledged to end the use of asylum hotels by 2029.

Home Office figures released last week found 32,059 asylum seekers were being housed in hotel accommodation at the end of June 2025, up 8% on the same point 12 months ago, but lower than the peak of 56,042 in 2023.

Do you have a story to tell or opinions to share about this? Get in touch and tell us more. 

It’s helping people with disabilities. 

It’s creating safer living conditions for renters.

It’s getting answers for the most vulnerable.

Big Issue brings you trustworthy journalism that drives real change. 

If this article gave you something to think about, help us keep doing this work from £5 a month.