High Court rules Home Office acted unlawfully over asylum accommodation changes

The High Court has ruled that the government acted unlawfully when it changed asylum accommodation policies that led to survivors of torture, trafficking and other serious forms of violence being required to share rooms with strangers.

The judgment follows a legal challenge brought by the Helen Bamber Foundation (HBF) and Freedom from Torture (FfT) against changes made by the Home Office to its Allocation of Asylum Accommodation policy in February 2024.

The policy determines how and where people seeking asylum are housed while their claims are being considered. According to the charities, the changes removed longstanding protections that generally prevented survivors of torture, trafficking and other serious violence from being placed in shared accommodation.

The court found that the Home Office had failed to consult either organisation before making what it described as fundamental changes to the policy. It also found that ministers failed to assess the likely impact on survivors despite what the judgment described as a substantial body of evidence highlighting the risks they face.

The ruling notes that the government has long recognised that “survivors of torture, trafficking and other serious violence in treatment with FfT or HBF should not be required to share rooms with unrelated adults because of the recognised risk of serious harm, including re-traumatisation and increased self-harm and suicidal ideation”.

The charities argued that the changes came amid increasing use of large-scale asylum accommodation, including former military sites and hotels where people are often required to share rooms with strangers. They said such environments can be particularly harmful for people recovering from experiences of torture, trafficking and other forms of abuse.

Before February 2024, there was a presumption that survivors of torture, trafficking and serious violence, as well as disabled people, should not be required to share rooms. The Home Office subsequently removed that presumption and introduced a system under which individuals were required to provide evidence demonstrating that shared accommodation was unsuitable.

In its judgment, the court found that the government failed to assess the risks associated with that change, including the potential impact on vulnerable people while evidence was being gathered and considered.

The court also found that the Home Office had abandoned a longstanding practice of consultation with specialist organisations. The judgment described HBF and FfT as “respected and expert bodies” and found that the department had acted without providing them with advance notice or an opportunity to comment on the proposed changes.

Kamena Dorling, Director of Policy at the Helen Bamber Foundation, welcomed the ruling.

“We have repeatedly raised concerns about terrible living conditions impeding the recovery of survivors of torture and trafficking. We have highlighted the shocking increase in self-harm and suicidal ideation in asylum accommodation.

“The decision to force more vulnerable people into large accommodation sites and shared hotel rooms was a political choice that ignored the evidence from those working with refugees every day.

“This legal battle was about making sure survivors are never an afterthought in the policies that shape their lives. It is time now for a different, more humane, approach.”

Freedom from Torture also described the judgment as a significant victory for survivors.

Natasha Tsangarides, Associate Director of Advocacy at Freedom from Torture, said: "No matter who we are or where we come from, we all deserve to live in safety. Today’s judgment is a vital and resounding victory for torture survivors, who for too long have suffered under this harmful policy.

“The judgment makes clear that the government acted unlawfully in changing its policy. We have seen the consequences of those changes: survivors of torture have been placed in harm’s way. This must serve as a wake-up call for the government to listen to the experts and finally provide safe and secure housing once and for all.”

The judgment represents a significant challenge to the Home Office's approach to asylum accommodation and raises questions about how future policy changes affecting vulnerable asylum seekers are developed and scrutinised. The ruling also reinforces the importance of consultation with specialist organisations and consideration of the impact of policy decisions on people who have experienced severe trauma.