Coventry council calls for ‘fairer system’ to house asylum seekers after losing Home Office legal battle

Coventry City Council has lost a legal battle against the Home Office over a decision to house more asylum seekers in the city.

The council argued that, while they welcome accommodating their fair share of asylum seekers, the burden placed on the city by the Home Office was “excessive”.

They raised concerns about some cities bearing a heavier burden than others and sought to ensure that the task of accommodating asylum seekers was shared evenly across the country.

The council called for a “fairer, more balanced system” to allow cities to do their bit to house asylum seekers while also not impacting upon other local services.

Lawyers for the council claimed that insufficient efforts to reduce the number of asylum seekers accommodated in Coventry and the housing of further asylum seekers was “unlawful”.

Mr Justice Eyre said that the Home Secretary accepted that the number of asylum seekers in Coventry should be reduced, but denied that any actions undertaken were unlawful

A judge dismissed the case on 14 November, citing the city’s statutory duty to accommodate asylum seekers.

Mr Justice Eyre said that the Home Secretary accepted that the number of asylum seekers in Coventry should be reduced, but denied that any actions undertaken were unlawful.

He also said that Shabana Mahmood had said that the unpredictable nature of the asylum-seeking process often produced accommodation needs “at short notice”, making the location of the accommodation irrelevant in such an emergency.

Coventry City Council has been particularly concerned about the use of hotels to house asylum seekers, after the Ibis hotel in Coventry was selected as a housing location on 12 November 2024.

Over the past 18 months, however, there has been a reduction of more than 60% in hotel use for asylum seeker housing – progress that Coventry City Council has acknowledged.

However, the council also said that the Government had promised not to exceed a ratio of one asylum seeker for every 200 residents, and that new accommodation for asylum seekers would not be used while in excess of this ratio.

The judge denied this objection, ruling that planning figures were not strict limits.