- The UK government is seeking permission to appeal a High Court ruling that blocked the use of the Bell Hotel in Essex to house asylum seekers.
- Epping Forest District Council won a temporary injunction, citing community tensions and safety concerns.
- Home Secretary Yvette Cooper says the government remains committed to closing asylum hotels, but insists it must be done in a coordinated way.
- The ruling has sparked protests, legal threats from hotel owners, and interest from other councils considering similar action. Over 32,000 asylum seekers are currently housed in hotels across the UK.
The UK government is pushing back after a High Court ruling blocked its plan to house asylum seekers at the Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex — a decision that’s quickly becoming a flashpoint in the national debate over immigration, housing, and local autonomy.
Earlier this week, Epping Forest District Council secured a temporary injunction preventing the Home Office from placing asylum seekers at the hotel. The court rejected a last-minute attempt by Home Secretary Yvette Cooper to intervene and dismiss the council’s case. Now, the government is seeking permission to appeal — and if granted, it’s expected to challenge the ruling itself.
At the heart of the dispute is a broader policy goal: closing all asylum hotels across the UK. Cooper insists the closures must happen in a “properly managed” way, warning that piecemeal court decisions could lead to chaos and strain on local councils. A senior Home Office source went further, framing the issue as one of democratic authority — arguing that courts shouldn’t dictate where the government can house asylum seekers.
But tensions in Epping are already high. The council’s legal argument centered on fears that the hotel’s use as asylum housing could escalate community unrest. Those concerns intensified after an asylum seeker living at the Bell Hotel was charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl — an incident that triggered protests and counter-protests outside the hotel.
The court sided with the council, ordering that the 140 asylum seekers currently housed there must leave by 16:00 BST on September 12. Since the ruling, more than half a dozen councils have expressed interest in pursuing similar legal action, potentially setting the stage for a wave of local resistance.
Meanwhile, Somani Hotels — the owner of the Bell Hotel — has announced plans to appeal the court’s decision, arguing that the injunction unfairly blocks its ability to operate.
The asylum seekers themselves remain caught in the middle. One individual told the BBC that the government should close the hotels and allow asylum seekers to work, so they can support themselves rather than rely on temporary housing.
Figures released this week show the scale of the challenge. As of Thursday, 32,059 asylum seekers are being housed in hotels — an 8% increase since Labour came to power, though still below the 2023 peak. The number of asylum applications has also hit a record high, reaching 111,000 in the year to June.
Conservative shadow home secretary Chris Philp slammed the government’s decision to appeal, calling it “completely wrong.” He argued that illegal arrivals should be deported immediately, and that towns like Epping should never be placed in such situations.
With legal battles mounting, political rhetoric intensifying, and community tensions rising, the Bell Hotel case is quickly becoming a symbol of the UK’s struggle to balance compassion, control, and local accountability in its asylum system.
