Cachella Smith
Live reporter

This afternoon, the Court of Appeal overturned a temporary injunction that would have blocked asylum seekers from being housed at the Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex.

Lord Justice Bean, leading a panel of three judges, found the previous High Court decision relied on a number of errors - including ignoring the "obvious consequence" with regarding to asylum seeker accommodation capacity more widely.

Today's ruling means that asylum seekers no longer have to leave the hotel by 12 September - it does not however constitute a final decision with the case due for trial in October.

The Court of Appeal has further allowed the Home Office to be involved in the case where the High Court had not.

Political reaction swiftly followed - with Kemi Badenoch calling it a "setback", Nigel Farage suggesting the government had used the European Convention of Human Rights "against the people of Epping" and the Lib Dems and the Green Party criticising the "legacy" of the Tory government.

Border Security and Asylum Minister Dame Angela Eagle says the Home Office launched its appeal so hotels like the Bell could be "exited in a controlled and orderly way," later adding that “nobody wants to close the Bell Hotel and all other asylum hotels more than me.”

Our political correspondent, Harry Farley, writes that it is a technical victory for the government - but the use of hotels is politically unpopular.

We're closing our live coverage now, but you can read a full write-up of today's ruling here.

Image source, UK POOL

We've just heard again from Border Security and Asylum Minister Dame Angela Eagle.

"Nobody wants to close the Bell Hotel and all other asylum hotels more than me" she says, reiterating the government's pledge to do this by 2029.

Asked what her message is for those who say the fight's not over, she replies, "I think we all want the same thing - which is to get out of asylum hotels".

"We've said they're not sustainable and we've inherited a system with huge backlogs," she continues.

In response to criticism than 2029 isn't soon enough to close asylum hotels, Eagle says "we are speeding up the system" and says the government is working to ensure appeals are also processed more quickly.

These reforms are "not tinkering at the edges" she goes on. "We're going to make the system work instead of delivering fantasy systems that don't work and create chaos."

Jemma Crew
Live reporter

We’ve been going through the reasons the Court of Appeal judges gave for overturning the High Court’s temporary injunction (see our previous post). Here are more reasons they set out in their summary judgement.

• Hotel actions weren’t deliberate: The judges said the High Court judge was wrong to find that Somani Hotels had acted deliberately in not seeking permission for change of use under planning law. They said his discretion in the case was “seriously flawed by his erroneous reliance” on a deliberate breach as a significant factor in favour of granting the temporary injunction.
• Temporary nature of injunction: The judges said very little weight was given to the desirability of preserving the status quo. The risk of injustice to the asylum seekers by being removed from the hotel weeks before the trial was to be heard in October “seems to have had oddly little resonance”, they said.

They concluded that while the judge had lawfully taken into account the fear of crime in Epping, he had failed to take into account that the order could encourage protest and was not necessary given that the council’s full claim against the hotel would be heard within weeks.

Jemma Crew
Live reporter

Firstly, Lord Justice Bean was quick to point out that this hearing was not about the merits of the government’s policy of where to house asylum seekers - in hotels or elsewhere.

Now that we've addressed that, our next few posts will look at the reasons the Court of Appeal judges gave for overturning the temporary injunction issued by the High Court last week.

The High Court judge who issued the injunction made a number of errors that “undermine his decision”, they said.

• Asylum seeker accommodation capacity: The Court of Appeal judges said the previous judge’s approach “ignores the obvious consequence” that closing one site means capacity is needed elsewhere. This may incentivise local planning authorities who wish to remove asylum accommodation from their area to apply to the court urgently before capacity elsewhere is used up, they said.

• Incentivisation of protests: The judges noted that legal counsel for Epping Forest District Council had said protests acted as a trigger for their request for an injunction. The judges said that if protests enhance the case for a planning injunction, “this runs the risk of acting as an impetus or incentive for further protests, some of which may be disorderly, around asylum accommodation”. There is also a risk of “encouraging further lawlessness”, which the judge “does not appear to have considered”.

• Alternative measures: The judge failed to consider whether there would have been alternative measures to mitigate the disruption, the Court of Appeal judges said. These could include use of police powers under the Public Order Act 1986, or an application by the council to restrain unlawful protests.

Let's revisit some of the key pledges Starmer made on migration when he came to power.

'End asylum hotels' by 2029

• Recent figures show there were more asylum seekers staying in hotels in June 2025 compared with June 2024 - a few days before the general election
• Shorter-term, the number has fallen by 286 since March 2025

'Smash the gangs' that organise small boat crossings

• As of 20 August, 27,997 people had arrived in the UK in small boats in 2025 - up by about 45% compared with the same period in 2024
• It's hard to tell yet - the Home Office says data on actions taken by officials to disrupt criminal gangs was "being collected and may be published in the future"

'Clear the asylum backlog' of people waiting to hear if they will be granted refugee status

• Since last June, there has been a 55% increase in decisions on asylum cases
• Overall, the backlog of asylum cases has fallen compared with the end of June 2024

'Increase returns' of people with no legal right to be in the UK

• Between July 2024 (when Labour came to power) and July 2025, there were 35,052 returns recoded by the Home Office - up 13% compared with the same period 12 months ago

You can read the full analysis by the BBC Verify team in this explainer.

Epping Forest District Council says it is "ruling nothing out" after the Court of Appeal overturned a temporary injunction blocking asylum seekers being housed at the Bell Hotel in Essex.

It says it doesn't accept criticisms of the council, and that it has "acted only in the interests of the people of Epping Forest".

It adds that it won't rule out taking its bid for a temporary injunction to the Supreme Court.

"Epping Forest District Council has responded to criticism related to earlier use of the Bell Hotel despite this not being relevant to the current legal action," its statement reads.

"The circumstances of the placement in 2023 were very different to those in 2025. In reality the complexity of some planning applications mean that they take much longer than the statutory eight weeks to determine."

The council adds: "In any case it would not have affected the outcome of the application. At any time after the eight-week period, the hotel operator could have appealed against non-determination.

"In the event, the Home Office ceased the use of the Bell as asylum seeker accommodation and it became an academic point.

"To have continued once the use had ceased would seem to have been a waste of taxpayers' money, especially as we had no reason to believe the Bell would be stood up again."

Image source, EPA

According to Home Office figures released this month, 111,000 asylum applications were made to the UK during the year to June. This marks a record high.

This is an increase of 14% from the previous year, and it is higher than the previous peak of 103,000 in 2002.

But officials are processing more cases than before the general election, meaning that over the long term there may be fewer people in the system needing housing support.

The figures also showed 71,000 cases, relating to 91,000 people, were awaiting an initial decision. The number of cases is lower than the number of people since one case can also cover the main claimant's family.

That backlog is almost half the peak of 134,000 cases at the end of June 2023.

Asylum hotel ruling won't feel like much of a victory at Home Officepublished at 17:47 BST 29 August

17:47 BST 29 August

Harry Farley
Political correspondent

The Court of Appeal ruling that will allow asylum seekers to stay at the Bell Hotel, in Epping, is a technical victory for the government.

Let's begin with the good news for ministers...

They will be breathing a sigh of relief having feared that, had they lost this appeal, other local councils could bring legal challenges against the use of hotels to house asylum seekers in their area.

This court ruling effectively resets the situation.

It gives ministers the time to fulfil their promise of removing all asylum seekers from hotels in "a controlled and orderly way" by 2029.

But there will not be any champagne corks popping in the Home Office...

In order to uphold their legal responsibility to protect asylum seekers, they have had to argue in favour of using hotels to house them.

As one Labour adviser told me, there will now be pressure on ministers to take more radical action to counter the kind of accusations they are facing.

That could include swapping some hotels for former military barracks or disused warehouses, as the health minister Stephen Kinnock suggested earlier on Sky News.

• Read more analysis from our political correspondent on today's ruling

The majority of asylum seekers cannot access welfare benefits in the UK, but they do gain legal protections while awaiting a decision - including accommodation if they cannot support themselves financially.

When asylum seekers first arrive they are usually first put up in fully catered hotels – and given £9.95 a week on a pre-paid debit card, rising to £49.18 a week when they're moved to self-catered accommodation.

Asylum seekers are generally entitled to free access to the NHS and can get some free childcare.

Children of asylum seekers are also entitled to state education and in some circumstances can qualify for free school meals.

Access to the legal labour market for asylum seekers, while they wait for their claims to be processed, is more restrictive in the UK than in many major European countries.

In the UK, they can apply for permission to work if they have been waiting for more than a year for an initial decision on their claim.

A full written ruling overturning the temporary injunction that would have blocked asylum seekers being housed at an Essex hotel will be handed down virtually at 16:00 BST on Monday, according to court listings.

Lord Justice Bean read a summary of the court's judgement earlier, and said the full ruling amounted to more than 120 paragraphs.

The Court of Appeal this afternoon ruled to overturn a previous temporary injunction which would have restrained company Somani Hotels Ltd from using the Bell Hotel in Epping to house asylum seekers.

Reaction has come through thick and fast since the judgement - here's the latest:

• Following the judgement, the government has underlined it wants to close asylum hotels in an "orderly way", while saying it is working to relieve pressure on the system

• Somani Hotels' solicitor said they were "pleased" by the ruling - adding that her client has been "caught in the middle" of a wider debate
• Leader of the opposition, Kemi Badenoch, dubbed the ruling a "setback" while Conservative Epping Councillor Ken Williamson said he was "deeply disappointed"
• Adding to the criticism, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage has accused the government of using the European Convention of Human Rights "against the people of Epping"
• Separately, the Lib Dems have criticised the "shameful legacy of Tories" in the use of hotels - while urging the government to "get a grip on this crisis"
• The Green Party said the case was a "distraction from the need to sort out the terrible legacy of 14 years of Conservative government misrule and Labour’s failure to come up with workable, humane solutions"

We'll have more reaction with you shortly - stay with us.

As a reminder, a full High Court hearing to decide on a permanent injunction for the Bell Hotel is expected in mid-October.

James Bryant
Reporting from the Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex

Here in Epping, the number of protesters has increased to around 20 with several Union Jack and St George's flags being waved.

One asylum seeker residing in the hotel was heckled by the protesters as they crossed the car park to enter the venue.

The Home Office issued new migration data just over a week ago.

In figures, here's how hotels are being used to support the asylum system:

• As of June 2025, UK hotels housed 32,059 asylum seekers, this is up 8% from the same time in 2024
• The figure is higher than when Labour came to power, but well below a peak of 56,042 in September 2023 under the Conservatives
• It's also a slight decrease on the total at the end of March this year, which was 32,345

• The Labour government has pledged to end the use of migrant hotels by 2029, by cutting small-boat crossings and speeding up decisions on asylum claims
• Specific costs for hotels were not published in the latest data, but Home Office figures released in July showed £2.1bn was spent on hotel accommodation - down from £3bn the previous year

Image source, PA Media

Shadow home secretary Chris Philp says the Epping case has "seen the Labour Government using the courts against the British public".

Speaking after the Court of Appeal ruling, he says the government has "brazenly said in court that the rights of illegal immigrants were more important than the rights of local people".

"The numbers in asylum hotels were dropping fast before the election - but have risen since because Labour has lost control of our borders," he says.

Philp blames Labour's cancelling of the Rwanda scheme as one of the reasons why the number of people coming into the UK via illegal routes has gone up.

The Green Party has also reacted to today's Court of Appeal ruling, saying the case is a "distraction from the need to sort out the terrible legacy of 14 years of Conservative government misrule and Labour’s failure to come up with workable, humane solutions".

Green MP Ellie Chowns says it is "inhumane, as well as costly to UK tax payers, for people seeking asylum to have to wait years for a decision and be housed in temporary accommodation like hostels and hotels".

Chowns says people have the right to claim asylum, and that the public have the right to "expect the government to run a fast and fair process to assess applications".

“The UK government quite rightly created safe and managed routes for people fleeing Ukraine. They need to offer the same to others seeking safety from similarly dangerous situations," she says, adding that it can be done "if the political will and leadership is there".

“People seeking asylum and protection must be allowed to work while their application is being decided. That’s the way to get them out of hotels and able to look after themselves and contributing to local communities," she adds.

Unpacking claims about role of European Convention of Human Rights in this casepublished at 16:25 BST 29 August

16:25 BST 29 August

Dominic Casciani
Home and Legal Correspondent

There are claims that the home secretary won this case thanks to the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). This claim needs some unpacking.

The Home Secretary is under a duty - imposed by our Parliament in 1999 - to prevent asylum seekers from becoming destitute - meaning sleeping rough on our streets. This was passed to ensure that ministers don’t ignore the challenges of global movements of people which began to accelerate towards the end of the century.

The 1999 law is closely linked to the right not to be subjected to degrading treatment in the European Convention of Human Rights - a right open to all.

Down the years successive Parliaments have adopted ideas from universal human rights - be it the UN Declaration of Human Rights, or the European Convention, and written them into our domestic law.

Sometimes those concepts are already part of our heritage - the ECHR ban on torture, for example, was written 300 years after England outlawed it.

So pulling out of the ECHR or whatever other treaty does not necessarily remove basic human protections. Many of them are deeply embedded in our legal and political choices as a nation.

Image source, PA Media

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage has responded to the court's ruling, accusing the government of using the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) "against the people of Epping".

"Illegal migrants have more rights than the British people under Starmer," he says in a post on X in response to the ruling.

Our home and legal correspondent will unpack this claim in our next post.

The director of the charity Migrant Voice says she is "relieved" following the Court of Appeal's ruling.

"The alternative was setting a dangerous precedent which would embolden the far right to further target those seeking safety," Nazek Ramadan tells the BBC.

She points out that there are still "many serious issues with hotels for people seeking asylum", with many often lacking "the most basic of necessities".

"Until this government starts investing in community schemes to provide better support though, hotels are at least better than the leaving people in camps or making them homeless," she adds.

In reaction to today's Court of Appeal ruling, the Liberal Democrats say the result of the appeal "doesn't change the fact that the use of asylum hotels at a massive cost to the taxpayer is a shameful legacy of the Conservatives".

Lib Dem home affairs spokeswoman, Lisa Smart, tells the BBC their party "long-called to end their (asylum hotel) use", and the asylum backlog has been "too large for far too long".

She adds that the Labour government needs to "urgently get a grip on this crisis - stopping dangerous Channel crossing and speeding up asylum processing to bring down the backlog and end hotel use once and for all".

Conservative Councillor Ken Williamson, who represents the Buckhurst Hill West ward, says he is "deeply disappointed" by the outcome of today's hearing.

He adds that the wellbeing of local Epping residents was the priority for the council.

Williamson says he understands the government faces a dilemma, but it should not be at the expense of local communities.

Planning law "enshrines" the rights of local people to have a say in their community, Williamson adds, saying that the "battle is not over".

"We will continue the fight," Williamson adds before walking away and refusing to answer questions from reporters.