The High Court of England and Wales has provided important guidance on the adequacy of hotel accommodation provided to asylum seekers under section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 in R (SH) v Secretary of State for the Home Department.
The claim was brought by two asylum-seeking mothers, anonymised as SH and BWO, who, along with their children, had been housed in hotel rooms for periods exceeding three years from mid-2022.
By September 2025, approximately 35,000 asylum seekers in the UK were being accommodated in hotels, including around 4,300 families, many with young children.
The claimants challenged the adequacy of their accommodation on multiple grounds, including alleged breaches of statutory duties, unlawful policy, and failures to comply with housing legislation.
Delivering judgment, Deputy High Court Judge Bates granted the claimants’ application for judicial review, finding that the accommodation provided to them had been inadequate.
The Court addressed the interaction between section 95 accommodation and housing legislation, including the Housing Act 1985 and the Housing Act 2004.
First, the Court held that hotel rooms used to accommodate asylum seekers were unlikely to constitute a “dwelling” within the meaning of the 1985 Act, even where used for prolonged periods. As a result, the statutory overcrowding rules in Part X of that Act did not directly apply. However, those rules could still be relevant as a benchmark when assessing whether accommodation was “adequate” under section 95.
Second, the Court found that the Home Secretary was entitled to adopt a policy adapting overcrowding standards to the context of asylum hotels rather than directly applying the statutory scheme. However, a key failing was that no such policy was in place until June 2024, leaving a significant period during which there was no clear guidance governing adequacy.
Third, the Court considered the licensing regime for houses in multiple occupation under the 2004 Act. While it was arguable that some hotel accommodation might fall within that regime, the Court held that even if a property were an unlicensed HMO, that would not automatically render it inadequate for the purposes of section 95. Enforcement of HMO requirements remained a matter for local authorities.
More broadly, the Court confirmed that challenges to asylum accommodation attract a heightened level of scrutiny, reflecting the fundamental importance of such support and the need to avoid conditions that could breach Convention rights.
Applying those principles, the Court found that the accommodation provided to SH and BWO was inadequate. The families had been required to live in single hotel rooms for prolonged periods, with insufficient space, privacy and facilities. The Court held that hotel accommodation for families was likely to become inadequate after an initial period of around three months.
The Court also rejected the Home Office’s approach to requests for relocation on medical grounds. It held that asylum seekers were not required to demonstrate “exceptional circumstances” before requesting accommodation suited to their needs. Instead, the Home Office must proactively assess individual vulnerabilities and ensure that accommodation is adequate in light of those needs.