{"id":456,"date":"2026-04-27T14:47:17","date_gmt":"2026-04-27T13:47:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/housing-rights.info\/news\/?p=456"},"modified":"2026-04-28T20:20:14","modified_gmt":"2026-04-28T19:20:14","slug":"asylum-support-accommodation-on-large-sites-an-information-pack","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/housing-rights.info\/news\/asylum-support-accommodation-on-large-sites-an-information-pack\/","title":{"rendered":"Asylum support accommodation on\u00a0\u2018large sites\u2019 \u2014 an information pack\u00a0"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Olivia Halse and Anya Draycott-Kapp of solicitors Gold Jennings describe the work they have done on \u201clarge sites\u201d.<\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The case <\/em>of TG and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 596 (Admin<\/em>)<\/a> sought to challenge not only the lawfulness of use of RAF Wethersfield as asylum support accommodation for vulnerable asylum seekers, but also the home secretary\u2019s Allocations of Accommodation Policy, which governs the provision of asylum support accommodation and sets out the \u2018suitability criteria\u2019 as to who is considered unsuitable for large-site accommodation.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Gold Jennings represented one of the lead claimants (TG), and Deighton Pierce Glynn (DPG) represented two others (HAA and MN). These individuals are victims of trafficking, torture and\/or serious physical violence, who each suffered a serious decline in their mental health as a result of living at Wethersfield.\u202fThroughout the life of the case, the suitability criteria changed numerous times, as did the processes and practices used by the Home Office in deciding suitability.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In March 2025, the High Court handed down judgment finding that the home secretary had acted unlawfully in accommodating the individual claimants at Wethersfield and had breached her duties under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. In relation to TG only, Justice Mould held that the defendant also discriminated against him by accommodating him at Wethersfield in breach of its duty to make reasonable adjustments for TG\u2019s disabilities under the Equality Act 2010.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On a systemic level, the High Court rejected the claimants\u2019 arguments and ruled that the home secretary\u2019s updated policies and procedures for identifying asylum seekers whose vulnerabilities meant that large site accommodation was unsuitable for them were capable of operating lawfully.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, the breaches found by the judge in the cases of TG, MN and HAA illustrate that the home secretary is not only required to have a system capable of operating lawfully, but must act lawfully in each individual case, and the failure to do so in an individual case will still be unlawful and a breach of her duty to provide adequate accommodation to destitute asylum seekers. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Further information in relation to the judgment can be found here.<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Current situation<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Despite the current government\u2019s manifesto pledge to shut down RAF Wethersfield, the site is still in use. In fact, the home secretary has recently decided to increase the capacity of Wethersfield and open new large sites across the UK, including Crowborough Barracks in East Sussex and Cameron Barracks in Inverness, Scotland. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The home secretary\u2019s published policies make clear that large sites are not suitable for asylum-seekers considered \u2018vulnerable\u2019 and the thrust of their argument in TG and others<\/em> was that the policies and processes now in place (namely, the updated version of Allocation of Asylum Support Accommodation policy) should prevent vulnerable asylum seekers who are unsuitable from being placed in large sites in the first place. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Failing that, the home secretary\u2019s position is that there are numerous avenues through which issues of unsuitability can be raised by residents for their suitability to be re-assessed and, if necessary, for relocation to alternative accommodation to take place.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The suitability criteria<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In brief, the policy states that large sites will not be suitable for potential victims of trafficking who have received a positive reasonable grounds decision via the National Referral Mechanism, and may not be suitable for other \u2018vulnerable\u2019 people with special needs. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Vulnerable people include: <\/p>\n\n\n\n