The High Court in London has heard how the Home Office’s decision to shut a dozen asylum hotels earlier this year plunged a mother and her two teenage children into shock, anxiety and panic after they were told they would be relocated to Aberdeen while the son prepared for his A‑level exams in the capital.
The Hotel Closure Programme
In April 2026 the Home Office, under Secretary Shabana Mahmood, announced the closure of 12 accommodation hotels that together provided roughly 2,500 beds. The majority of occupants were women and children, and the move was intended to free up hotel space for adult male asylum seekers expected to arrive over the summer months. The shutdown was carried out in tranches, forming part of a broader strategy to phase out the use of hotels for asylum housing altogether.
A Family’s Turmoil
Alex Goodman KC, representing the family, told the court that the department failed to assess the impact of moving 2,500 people in under ninety days. He said the haste resulted in vulnerable women and children being dispatched to “far‑flung areas of the country”. For the mother and her two children, the news came as a blow: they had lived in London for four years, had relatives nearby, and the son was about to sit his A‑level examinations. Being earmarked for Aberdeen triggered “shock, anxiety and panic”, Goodman explained, especially after a note advising that the family should be housed within a reasonable distance of the boy’s school while he took his exams was overlooked.
Legal Proceedings and Government Response
The family had repeatedly asked to be moved from hotel accommodation to suitable housing in London. In 2023 they were offered a placement in another part of the capital but did not take it up; later they were ordered to relocate to Durham, a move that never materialised. After initiating legal action, they were transferred to a different London hotel and informed they would be sent to Glasgow, a decision the Home Office later agreed to reconsider. During the hearing, the Home Office conceded that the Aberdeen instruction was erroneous. Alan Payne KC, defending the Secretary, characterised the claim as “academic”, arguing that most families had already been removed from hotels and that high‑level policy decisions to end asylum hotel use could not be expected to accommodate exceptional cases. He added that accommodation remained available in the north, countering criticisms of northern allocations.
What Lies Ahead
Ms Justice Obi reserved her judgment, promising a written decision at a later date. The outcome will determine whether the family can remain in London close to the son’s school and support network, or whether they will be uprooted to a distant city amid a critical academic period.
Why it Matters
This case highlights the human cost behind sweeping policy shifts. When accommodation strategies are devised without proper impact assessments, the most vulnerable – women, children and students – bear the brunt, facing disruption to education, family ties and essential services. The court’s scrutiny underscores the need for decision‑makers to balance efficiency with empathy, ensuring that logistical convenience does not eclipse the wellbeing of those seeking safety.
