Eflash - R(SH) v. SSHD, R(BWO) v. SSHD [2026] EWHC 729 (Admin)
This was a case about the accommodation of asylum seekers in hotels. The High Court held that the rooms were not "dwellings" and therefore the statutory overcrowding provisions in Part 10 of the Housing Act 1985 did not apply. The Court decided that it was not necessary to decide whether the hotels were HMOs.
Mr Toby Vanhegan appeared for the successful claimants in both claims, instructed by Deighton Pierce Glynn Solicitors.
These were test cases about the lawfulness of accommodating asylum seekers in hotels. As at September 2025, over 35,000 individuals receiving asylum support were being accommodated in hotels. Of these, there were about 4,300 families. The accommodation for both the claimants had for a prolonged period of time been a room in a hotel. SH was accommodated in a hotel room with her husband and two children, who were 7 and 2 years old. BWO was accommodated in a hotel room with her two sons who, when they arrived in the UK in July 2022, were 17 and 12 years old. Both claimants brought judicial review claims challenging the lawfulness of their accommodation.
The claims were heard together before Bates J. The claimants argued that their accommodation was not adequate and therefore in breach of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, statutorily overcrowded and an unlicensed HMO. The Court held that the hotel rooms were not "dwellings" and therefore the overcrowding provisions in the Housing Act 1985 did not apply. The Court applied and followed R(N) v. Lewisham LBC [2014] UKSC 62, [2015] AC 1259, and drew an analogy with accommodation provided by a local housing authority under section 188 of the Housing Act 1996.
The Court held that it was possible that the uses of the living accommodation at the hotel are not, in fact, limited to occupation by persons "as their only or main residence", see the Housing Act 2004 section 254(2)(d), but also includes some element of alternative use such as reception or administration services, housekeeping services or meal preparation. It seems unlikely that Parliament intended that accommodation provided in hotels on a fully catered basis should be regulated as a HMO. However, the Court held that it was not necessary to decide the issue, or express a concluded view, because the matter could be reported to the local housing authority to investigate and take the appropriate action.
However, the Court did find that the defendant was in breach of her duty under sections 95 and 96 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 to provide "adequate" accommodation for the claimants during certain periods of time when they were accommodated in the hotels.
Accordingly, both claims were allowed.
|
