A council has lost a High Court claim against the Home Office's decision to accommodate further asylum seekers in Coventry.
Although Coventry City Council was "proud" of voluntarily housing asylum seekers, it brought the legal action, saying the number of migrants being accommodated in the city was "excessive".

Lawyers for the council said the Home Office's failure to reduce the number of asylum seekers housed in Coventry more quickly and the placement of further asylum seekers were both "unlawful".

On Friday, Mr Justice Eyre dismissed the claim.
In the 32-page ruling, he said: "The defendant accepts that the number of asylum seekers accommodated in Coventry should be reduced.

"She contends that she is moving to implement a policy under which asylum seekers are accommodated more widely throughout the United Kingdom, but she denies that there is any unlawfulness in the action she has taken thus far."
Mr Justice Eyre added that the council was willing to play its part in meeting the needs of asylum seekers, but was concerned about "bearing more than its fair share".

The judge also said the claim was "motivated by a concern to ensure that the burden of accommodating asylum seekers is shared more widely across the country".

In the ruling, he said the Home Office had sought to reduce the number of asylum seekers accommodated in Coventry, but added that there was a statutory duty to house asylum seekers.

Mr Justice Eyre added: "She (the Home Secretary) also says that the need to provide such accommodation can arise at short notice and, on occasion, the circumstances will be such that the location of the accommodation to be used can carry little weight in the decision-making process."

Coventry City Council took the legal action after the Home Office decided on November 12 2024 to use the Ibis Hotel to accommodate asylum seekers.

It argued that the Government had agreed not to procure accommodation for asylum seekers in excess of a ratio of one asylum seeker per 200 residents, and that it would not procure new accommodation while those figures were exceeded.

Mr Justice Eyre rejected this contention, adding that the figures were planning tools and not limits.

Lawyers for the council also argued that it was irrational to accommodate asylum seekers in excess of the ratio, but the judge dismissed this claim, saying the actions were rational given the statutory duty to house asylum seekers, the unpredictable and urgent nature of asylum accommodation needs, and the limited availability of suitable accommodation.

The ruling comes days after Mr Justice Mould ruled that asylum seekers could continue to be housed at the Bell Hotel in Essex after refusing to grant Epping Forest District Council an injunction that would block them from living there.
The council took legal action against the hotel owner, Somani Hotels, claiming that accommodating asylum seekers there breaches planning rules.

Mr Justice Mould dismissed the claim on Tuesday and said in a judgment that it is "not a case in which it is just and convenient for this court to grant an injunction".