Three families seeking asylum in the UK have launched a legal challenge against new Home Office rules to ditch basic housing protections for tens of thousands in this group.
The Guardian revealed last month that ministers were removing these basic protections, which govern houses in multiple occupation, from asylum seekers, as part of their plan to move tens of thousands out of hotels and into the private rented sector.
Lawyers representing the families have called the new rules “a charter for unscrupulous landlords”.
The legal action calls on government – both the home secretary, Suella Braverman, and the levelling up, housing and communities secretary, Michael Gove – to withdraw or suspend the draft regulations pending further inquiry into their impact.
Huge backlogs in the asylum processing system have led to more than 50,000 asylum seekers being housed in hotels across the country, at a cost of £6m a day. The government has pledged to end hotel use for asylum seekers and instead provide cheaper accommodation.
The changes, which were confirmed by the government in a statutory instrument at the end of March, exempt landlords from regulations governing everything from electrical safety to minimum room sizes.
According to the statutory instrument, landlords of asylum seekers in England and Wales would no longer have to register with local authorities. The rules would allow them to house asylum seekers for two years without obtaining a house in multiple occupation (HMO) licence, a standard requirement for any landlord renting to more than one household in a single property.
In legal documents seen by the Guardian, lawyers representing the three families say that any measure to reduce minimum regulatory protection requires “justification and by careful investigation” as many asylum seekers are vulnerable and have experienced trauma.
Lawyers argue that there is no evidence the home secretary has carried out any sort of “careful investigation” into whether the new draft regulations provide safe and appropriate accommodation for asylum seekers.
Lawyers add that the justification for exempting asylum seekers from HMO safeguards, which is that the government wants to speed up access to HMO accommodation for asylum seekers, is “irrational” as it is possible to accommodate people in an HMO while a licence application is pending.
The legal documents describe government claims to maintain standards by means of their accommodation contracts as “nonsensical” and add that the only way ditching current standards can help government is by allowing the home secretary to acquire and use cheaper properties that do not meet mandatory standards on room size, facilities and minimum safety standards.
They say that the current criminal liability for landlords breaching HMO standards will not apply to Home Office accommodation contractors so there will be less incentive for them to comply with HMO rules.
In order to achieve her objectives the home secretary will have to squeeze more people in, use substandard properties that don’t meet current HMO requirements and incentivise landlords to switch to providing accommodation for asylum seekers, lawyers conclude.
The legal challenge accuses Gove of having “uncritically adopted the policy objectives of the home secretary”.
The government has been asked to disclose documents including briefings for ministers about the new policy.
Sheroy Zaq of Duncan Lewis Solicitors, who is representing the three families said: “The draft legislation threatens the safety of asylum seekers including families with children placed in unlicensed accommodation. The proposals also threaten the safety of the wider community, for example the risk of a fire breaking out. This removal of vital regulatory protections is a charter for unscrupulous landlords.”
A Home Office spokesperson said: “These changes will not compromise standards and all properties will be independently inspected to ensure they continue to meet national housing quality requirements, covering issues such as overcrowding and fire safety. The use of expensive hotels to house the unprecedented number of asylum seekers crossing the Channel is unacceptable and must end.
“By temporarily removing this licensing requirement, we will be able to acquire more suitable long-term accommodation while continuing to meet our legal duty of care,” the spokesperson added.
• This article was amended on 13 June 2023 to add a statement from the Home Office, which was received after publication.
