{"id":454,"date":"2026-04-27T14:21:27","date_gmt":"2026-04-27T13:21:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/housing-rights.info\/news\/?p=454"},"modified":"2026-04-27T14:21:27","modified_gmt":"2026-04-27T13:21:27","slug":"asylum-hotels-overcrowding-and-the-hmo-rules","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/housing-rights.info\/news\/asylum-hotels-overcrowding-and-the-hmo-rules\/","title":{"rendered":"Asylum hotels, overcrowding and the HMO rules\u00a0"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

A recent High Court\u00a0judgment on asylum hotels has given guidance on adequacy, overcrowding and the HMO rules.\u00a0<\/em>Ben Amunwa<\/em><\/a>\u202fof\u00a0<\/em>3PB<\/em><\/a>\u00a0examines the ruling.\u00a0(This article has been\u00a0reproduced with permission from\u00a0<\/em>Local Government Lawyer<\/a>.)<\/em>\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On 26 March 2026, the High Court handed down\u00a0a\u00a0judgment in\u00a0R (SH) v Secretary of State for the Home Department<\/em><\/a>\u00a0<\/em>[2026] EWHC 729 (Admin) granting the\u00a0claimants\u2019 application for judicial review of the adequacy of Home Office accommodation provided to them under s.95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (\u2018IAA 1999\u2019).\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is the first reported case to consider the complex interaction between the overcrowding rules in Part X of the Housing Act 1985 (\u2018HA 1985\u2019), the licencing regime for houses in multiple occupation (\u2018HMOs\u2019) as set out in Part II of the Housing Act 2004 (\u2018HA 2004\u2019) and the accommodation of destitute asylum-seeking families in hotels. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Background<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

A total of approximately 35,000 individual asylum seekers were accommodated in hotels in the UK as of September 2025. Of that total, there were some 4,300 families, many with minor children. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The claimants, anonymised as \u2018SH\u2019 and \u2018BWO\u2019, were two asylum seeking mothers with dependent children. Their families were accommodated in hotel rooms for periods of three years or more from mid-2022 onwards. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

They were granted permission to proceed with all five grounds of challenge, including alleged breaches of housing legislation, adoption of an unlawful policy, breaches of the statutory duty to provide adequate accommodation and associate common law requirements of reasonableness\/rationality. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The judgement<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In summary, the judgment of Alan Bates, sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court, concluded: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. Hotel rooms provided under s.95 of the IAA 1999\u00a0are\u00a0unlikely to meet the definition of a\u00a0\u2018dwelling\u2019\u00a0in s.343 of the HA 1985, even if used for prolonged periods. This was based on the\u00a0court\u2019s analysis of the legislative and policy context in this area (\u00a734(1), (4) & (6)-(7)). Overcrowding rules in Part X of the HA 1985 were not entirely irrelevant to the question of whether accommodation met the standard of \u2018adequacy\u2019 in s.95 IAA 1999. However, the two frameworks were not equivalent (\u00a7\u00a734(2) & 42);\u00a0<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n
      \n
    1. In the circumstances, the\u00a0home\u00a0secretary was entitled to adopt a policy that adapted the overcrowding rules to the context of asylum hotels. She was not obliged to replicate Part X of the HA 1985. However, her policy was not in place until June 2024. For some of the time that the\u00a0claimants were accommodated in hotel rooms, s\/he had no available policy guidance (\u00a7\u00a745 & 48);\u00a0<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n
        \n
      1. While the HA 2004 licencing regime might apply to SH\u2019s hotel room (which lacked a kitchenette), it was unnecessary for the\u00a0court to reach a definitive conclusion,\u00a0given that an unlicenced HMO would not necessarily fail to meet the test of adequacy under s.95 of the IAA 1999. Any complaint\u00a0regarding\u00a0SH\u2019s hotel\u00a0operating\u00a0as an unlicenced HMO could be pursued via the local authority responsible for investigating and enforcing that regime (\u00a763);\u00a0<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n
          \n
        1. More generally, in a judicial review challenge to s.95 accommodation, the\u00a0court confirmed that it applies a heightened degree of scrutiny\u00a0\u201c\u2026that properly reflects the significance of asylum support under ss.95-96 IAA 1999 to the individuals who receive it, including for protecting them from being exposed to conditions that could breach their Convention Rights\u201d\u00a0(\u00a766);\u00a0<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n
            \n
          1. The\u00a0home\u00a0secretary had breached her duty in s.95 of the IAA 1999 in the individual cases of SH and BWO by providing them with rooms of insufficient size,\u00a0privacy\u00a0and conveniences for their families over a prolonged period. Hotel room accommodation was likely to become inadequate for such families after\u00a0an initial\u00a0period of\u00a0three\u00a0months (\u00a7\u00a781 & 100);\u00a0<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n
              \n
            1. While residential asylum accommodation was provided\u00a0on a\u00a0\u2018no choice\u2019\u00a0basis, there was no requirement for asylum seekers to\u00a0demonstrate\u00a0\u2018exceptional circumstances\u2019\u00a0before they could request accommodation in a particular location on medical grounds (\u00a7\u00a793-95). The correct approach is for the Home Office to\u00a0identify\u00a0a person\u2019s needs and to satisfy herself that the accommodation provided or offered is adequate to meet those needs.\u00a0<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

              Comment<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

              While the court left open the extent to which overcrowding rules may be relevant in any given case of s.95 hotel accommodation, for now, Part X of the HA 1985 does not apply to hotel accommodation provided by the Home Office and could only ever be indirectly relevant to its adequacy. The application of the overcrowding rules to residential asylum accommodation remains an open question, as does the extent to which the court should take account of alleged breaches of the HMO licencing regime. There remains a degree of unclarity that is yet to be resolved here. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

              Elsewhere, the judgment reaffirms the home secretary\u2019s duty to take account of individual vulnerabilities giving rise to accommodation needs. In SH\u2019s case, the court described the family\u2019s living circumstances as \u201cextraordinarily stressful\u201d as the family had an infant and a school-age child in one hotel room for a lengthy period. Similarly, in BWO\u2019s case, the court acknowledged that the single hotel room that the defendant provided to the family meant that their sleeping arrangements were \u201cincompatible with personal dignity\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

              A likely consequence of the High Court\u2019s findings is that the Home Office\u2019s recently updated \u2018Allocation of asylum accommodation policy\u2019 will need to be adapted to align with the law. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

              The consideration of adequacy in both cases turned in part on when the home secretary was made aware of the claimants\u2019 needs. The duty to provide adequate accommodation is responsive to those needs, but only once they are identified. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

              Ultimately, the judgment makes clear that the home secretary must proactively identify vulnerabilities, and that accommodation which starts out adequate can become unlawful if it goes on too long. The judgment clarifies the legal framework, but leaves considerable scope for further challenges, particularly in cases involving prolonged hotel accommodation and vulnerable claimants. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

              Ben Amunwa<\/em><\/a>\u202fof\u00a0<\/em>3PB<\/em><\/a>\u00a0was led by Zo\u00eb Leventhal KC and was co-junior with Toby\u00a0Vanhegan, instructed by Sasha Rozansky and Lily Moghadam of Deighton Pierce Glynn. The\u00a0secretary of\u00a0state was represented by Carine Patry KC, leading Karen Reid, instructed by the Government Legal Department.<\/em>\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

              \n\n\n\n

              Free Movement\u00a0<\/em>adds<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cThe case highlights the importance of evidence. The consideration of adequacy in both cases turned in part on when the Home Secretary was made aware of the claimants\u2019 needs. The duty to provide adequate accommodation is responsive to those needs, but only once they are\u00a0identified.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

              Ultimately, the judgment makes clear that the Home Secretary must proactively identify vulnerabilities, and that accommodation which starts out adequate can become unlawful if it goes on too long. The judgment clarifies the legal framework, but leaves considerable scope for further challenges, particularly in cases involving prolonged hotel accommodation and vulnerable claimants.\u201d <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

              A recent High Court\u00a0judgment on asylum hotels has given guidance on adequacy, overcrowding and the HMO rules.\u00a0Ben Amunwa\u202fof\u00a03PB\u00a0examines the ruling.\u00a0(This article has been\u00a0reproduced with permission…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":424,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_kad_post_transparent":"","_kad_post_title":"","_kad_post_layout":"","_kad_post_sidebar_id":"","_kad_post_content_style":"","_kad_post_vertical_padding":"","_kad_post_feature":"","_kad_post_feature_position":"","_kad_post_header":false,"_kad_post_footer":false,"_kad_post_classname":"","slim_seo":{"title":"Asylum hotels, overcrowding and the HMO rules\u00a0 - Housing Rights","description":"A recent High Court\u00a0judgment on asylum hotels has given guidance on adequacy, overcrowding and the HMO rules.\u00a0 Ben Amunwa \u202fof\u00a0 3PB \u00a0examines the ruling.\u00a0(This a"},"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-454","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-asylum-accommodation"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/housing-rights.info\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/454","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/housing-rights.info\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/housing-rights.info\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/housing-rights.info\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/housing-rights.info\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=454"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/housing-rights.info\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/454\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/housing-rights.info\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/424"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/housing-rights.info\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=454"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/housing-rights.info\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=454"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/housing-rights.info\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=454"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}