High Court hears systemic challenge to Home Office asylum hotel closure process and accommodation decisions

The High Court has heard a systemic challenge to the Home Office’s practice of closing asylum hotels and relocating vulnerable asylum seekers, in proceedings brought by our clients, a mother and her two children.

KGT and her two sons, KMK and KLM, have been accommodated by the Home Office under the asylum support system since 2022. KGT is a survivor of serious domestic violence and abuse and suffers from significant mental health difficulties. KMK and KLM have both been recognised by the Home Office as potential victims of trafficking and modern slavery, having received positive Reasonable Grounds decisions through the National Referral Mechanism.

The Claimants have chosen to bring this challenge not only because of the impact that the Home Office's decisions have had on their family, but because they are concerned about the effect of those decisions on many other vulnerable asylum seekers facing relocation following asylum hotel closures. Their claim raises important systemic issues about whether the Home Office lawfully identified and considered the needs of vulnerable residents before deciding to decant and disperse them from asylum hotels

The claim concerns the Home Office's decision to close the Staycity Aparthotel in Lewisham, which had been used as asylum accommodation, and the wider process adopted when relocating and dispersing vulnerable residents affected by the closure. The proceedings also challenge the Home Office's approach to assessing the accommodation needs of vulnerable asylum seekers and families.

Ms Justice Obi heard the claim over the course of a full-day hearing on 6 October 2026. The Court heard detailed submissions from both parties concerning the lawfulness of the Home Office's approach to asylum hotel closures, the assessment of vulnerability amongst affected residents, and the steps taken to identify and address the needs of individuals facing relocation.

The Claimants argue that the SSHD failed to comply with the Public Sector Equality Duty and failed to make adequate enquiries into the impact of the closure on vulnerable residents. They contend that the Home Office adopted an approach which failed properly to identify and assess the needs of those most at risk before decisions about relocation were made.

The claim further argues that the Home Office proceeded with the closure despite knowing that many residents had significant vulnerabilities, including disabilities, mental health conditions, histories of abuse and trafficking, and established support networks in the local area. The Claimants say that insufficient consideration was given to the effect that relocation and out-of-area dispersal would have on those residents and their wellbeing.

KGT, KMK and KLM's case is that vulnerable asylum seekers should not be treated as an afterthought in the Home Office's accommodation planning. They argue that before accommodation is closed and residents dispersed, there must be a lawful process for identifying vulnerability and ensuring that the needs of those affected are properly understood and addressed. They hope that this challenge will help secure fairer treatment and better protections for other vulnerable asylum-seeking individuals and families facing similar circumstances.

At the conclusion of the hearing, Ms Justice Obi reserved judgment.

The Claimants are represented by Ahmed Aydeed, Natalie Hawes, Ralitsa Peykova and Megan Hovvels of Deighton Pierce Glynn. DPG instructed Alex Goodman KC of Landmark Chambers and Ben Amunwa and Mariya Peykova of 3PB.