High Court dismisses Coventry City Council challenge to asylum dispersal policy

In R (Coventry City Council) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 2929 (Admin), Mr Justice Eyre dismissed arguments that the Home Secretary had breached legitimate expectations, acted irrationally, or failed to comply with equality duties when procuring accommodation for asylum seekers in Coventry.

The council had argued that the number of asylum seekers accommodated locally exceeded agreed limits under the ‘1:200 ratio’ (one asylum seeker per 200 residents), the Service User Demand Plan (SUDP), and the Bedspace Demand Plan (BDP). It claimed that the Home Secretary’s actions undermined the statutory purpose of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and breached both substantive and procedural legitimate expectations.

The court rejected these submissions, holding that:

The SUDP and BDP were planning mechanisms rather than enforceable caps. Representations about the 1:200 ratio did not create a binding legitimate expectation when viewed against the Home Secretary’s statutory duty to house destitute asylum seekers.

Moreover, the placement of asylum seekers above the 1:200 ratio was rational given the urgent and unpredictable nature of asylum accommodation needs and the limited availability of suitable housing.

The council’s complaint about the use of the Ibis Hotel in November 2024, where it was given less than 48 hours’ notice, was deemed academic as the hotel was no longer in use. The Home Secretary had since clarified her policy of giving local authorities an opportunity to comment in advance.

The High Court also found that the Padfield principle (in which a public authority's discretionary power cannot be used to frustrate the purpose of the statute that grants it) was not engaged in this case. The court found that the purpose of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 was to provide accommodation for destitute asylum seekers, not to enforce national dispersal ratios. The Home Secretary’s actions did not thwart that purpose.

An Equality Impact Assessment had been carried out when the Full Dispersal Model was adopted in 2022. The court held that repeated assessments were not required.

Although Coventry maintained that issues remained live – particularly the continuing numbers above the SUDP figure – the court concluded that the Home Secretary had not acted unlawfully. The claim was dismissed in its entirety.