Nigel Farage has exploded with fury following an appeal’s judge decision to allow the Bell Hotel in Epping to continue being used to house illegal migrants. The bombshell ruling from last week was overturned this morning, after the appeals court saw the government argue that the rights of illegal migrants take precedence over the outrage of locals.
The decision gets the Labour Government out of a massive headache, as it feared the previous successful ruling by Epping Council would throw its migrant hotel policy into disarray. The High Court initially ruled that 138 asylum seekers would have to be removed by September 1, however today’s ruling by Lord Justice Bean said the previous decision was flawed. Responding to the seismic decision by the court, Mr Farage said the government “has used ECHR against the people of Epping.”
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
Nigel Farage tore into the Labour government (Image: Getty)
He blasted: “Illegal migrants have more rights than the British people under Starmer.”
This week saw Reform UK unveil its plan for mass deportations of illegal migrants from Britain, which would require leaving the European Convention on Human Rights and displaying a number of other international refugee treaties.
Deputy Reform UK leader Richard Tice agreed that judges had sided “with illegal migrants against British people”, adding “Only Reform UK can be trusted to end this insanity.”
Justice Bean said the High Court had granted the injunction partly to reduce the risk of protests at the hotel – but this could actually increase the risk of disorder in the future.
In another win for the Home Office, Lord Justice Bean also said he was granting the Home Secretary permission to appeal against a ruling that she could not be a party in a future court hearing on the issue.
In a victory for Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, he said the Home Office can intervene in the case. Reading a summary of the decision, Lord Justice Bean said the Home Office had a “constitutional role relating to public safety” and was affected by the issues.
Epping has been a focal point of recent migrant hotel protests (Image: Getty)
In written submissions for Thursday’s appeal hearing, Edward Brown KC, for the Home Office, said Mr Justice Eyre had “no regard to the obvious risk that other local planning authorities would adopt the same approach”.
Piers Riley-Smith, for Somani Hotels, in written submissions on Thursday, said that Mr Justice Eyre “overlooked” the “hardship” that would be caused to asylum seekers if they were required to move.
But Epping Forest District Council opposed the appeal bids, with barrister Philip Coppel KC stating in written submissions that the case “sets no precedent” and there was “no compelling reason” for the injunction to be overturned.
The Home Office told the court that the initial ruling set a “dangerous precedent” for other local authorities hoping to close down illegal migrant hotels.
The Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch had instructed all other Tory-led councils to follow Epping’s example and move to get hotels shut down on similar grounds.
Nigel Farage Explodes at Epping Hotel Decision: “Illegal Migrants Have More Rights!”
Nigel Farage has launched a fierce attack on the government following a major court decision concerning the use of the Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex, accusing ministers of putting the rights of asylum seekers ahead of local residents.
The controversy centred on a temporary injunction that had prevented asylum seekers from being housed at the hotel. The Court of Appeal subsequently overturned that injunction, allowing asylum seekers to remain at the accommodation while the wider legal dispute continued. At the time of the ruling, around 138 asylum seekers were staying at the Bell Hotel.
The decision immediately became a major political flashpoint.
Farage reacted angrily, claiming that the government had used the European Convention on Human Rights against people in Epping and arguing that “illegal migrants have more rights than the British people under Starmer.”
His intervention reflected one of Reform UK’s central political arguments: that Britain’s immigration and asylum system has become too complicated, expensive and difficult for governments to control.
The Epping dispute, however, was more complicated than the political slogans surrounding it.
The legal case was primarily concerned with planning issues and the government’s responsibilities towards asylum seekers who might otherwise face destitution. The Court of Appeal said the earlier injunction had been seriously flawed and contained several errors in principle.
That distinction became an important part of the wider political debate.
The Bell Hotel becomes a national political symbol
The Bell Hotel had become the focus of repeated demonstrations after an asylum seeker staying there was accused of sexual offences. The allegations generated intense anger locally and contributed to protests outside the hotel.
The defendant denied the charges. The demonstrations subsequently attracted national political attention, with police having to manage gatherings and, on occasions, disorder.
For opponents of asylum hotels, the situation became an example of what they regarded as the government’s failure to listen to local communities.
For the government, however, immediately removing asylum seekers from the hotel would have created a practical problem: they would still need somewhere to live.
The Home Office argued that asylum seekers facing destitution had to be accommodated under Britain’s legal obligations. Government lawyers also warned that allowing individual councils to force hotels to close through injunctions could create a wider accommodation crisis.
The Court of Appeal ultimately accepted the government’s appeal against the temporary injunction.
The judges also expressed concern that treating protests as a factor supporting an injunction could create an incentive for further protests around asylum accommodation. They noted the possibility that such a precedent could encourage disorder elsewhere.
That became one of the most significant elements of the ruling.
Farage’s response
Farage immediately seized upon the decision as evidence for his broader argument about immigration.
His criticism focused heavily on the perception that British residents were being placed second to people who had entered the country irregularly.
However, it is important to distinguish Farage’s political characterization from the legal facts of the case.
The Court of Appeal did not rule that asylum seekers had a general legal status giving them greater rights than British citizens. Instead, the case involved competing legal considerations, including planning control and the government’s statutory responsibilities concerning asylum accommodation.
Indeed, the appeal judges specifically described an argument about a “hierarchy of rights” in this particular context as unattractive.
That means the political language surrounding the case should not be confused with the precise legal reasoning behind the judgment.
Nevertheless, Farage’s reaction illustrates why the Epping dispute became politically significant.
Reform UK has repeatedly argued that Britain’s immigration system needs fundamental reform. The party has proposed much tougher measures on illegal migration, asylum accommodation and deportation.
For Farage, the Bell Hotel controversy fitted naturally into that wider argument.
A wider dispute over asylum hotels
The Epping case also highlighted the scale of Britain’s reliance on hotels to accommodate asylum seekers.
At the time of the 2025 court ruling, government figures showed that more than 32,000 migrants were being accommodated in over 200 hotels across Britain. The government said it intended to close the asylum hotels before the next general election.
Ministers argued that the hotel system had been inherited from previous governments and was expensive and difficult to manage.
Angela Eagle, the minister responsible for asylum, said the government had inherited a chaotic accommodation system costing billions and argued that hotels should be closed in a controlled and orderly manner.
The government therefore found itself caught between two pressures.
On one side were communities and politicians demanding that hotels stop being used for asylum accommodation.
On the other was the practical reality that thousands of asylum seekers required somewhere to live while their claims were processed.
Closing a hotel does not automatically eliminate the need for accommodation.
Instead, the people staying there have to be moved elsewhere.
That is why the government warned that immediate closures could simply transfer the problem from one community to another.
Why the issue matters to Reform UK
For Reform UK, asylum hotels represent more than an accommodation problem.
They have become part of a broader argument about national sovereignty and immigration control.
Farage has repeatedly argued that Britain should have greater control over who enters the country, how asylum applications are processed and whether people whose claims fail can be removed.
Reform has also advocated significant changes to Britain’s human-rights framework and has proposed large-scale deportation policies.
The party says such measures are necessary to restore confidence in Britain’s borders.
Opponents argue that the proposals could conflict with existing legal obligations and raise significant humanitarian questions.
The Epping dispute provided Farage with an opportunity to return to that argument.
His message was straightforward: local communities should have more influence over decisions affecting their towns.
That message can resonate particularly strongly when an accommodation centre becomes associated with protests, allegations of crime or concerns about community safety.
But the legal process demonstrates why governments cannot simply respond to every local dispute by immediately removing asylum accommodation.
National immigration policy operates within a framework of legislation, judicial review and international obligations.
The role of the courts
The Court of Appeal decision was particularly important because it overturned the temporary injunction granted by the High Court.
The earlier decision had required the asylum seekers to leave the hotel by September 12.
The Court of Appeal reversed that order.
The judges found that the original decision contained significant legal errors and said the potential consequences of encouraging similar protests elsewhere had not been adequately considered.
The ruling did not, however, permanently settle every question surrounding the Bell Hotel.
Epping Forest District Council said it intended to continue its legal challenge, with a further hearing expected later.
The council maintained that its concerns included planning matters and the wellbeing of local residents.
This illustrates an important feature of the dispute.
The government won the immediate appeal, but the broader political argument did not disappear.
Local concerns and national politics
Epping’s experience also demonstrates how immigration policy can become a local issue.
For residents living close to an asylum hotel, national statistics can feel remote. What matters to them may be changes they see in their immediate neighbourhood.
Questions about policing, public order, housing, local businesses and community relations can all become connected to the presence of asylum accommodation.
The government therefore has to consider both national immigration policy and local consequences.
At the same time, councils have limited control over national asylum policy.
This division of responsibilities can create tension.
Local authorities may believe that they should have greater influence over whether hotels in their areas are used for asylum accommodation. The central government, meanwhile, argues that asylum accommodation is ultimately a national responsibility.
The Bell Hotel dispute brought that conflict into sharp focus.
The political battle over Keir Starmer
Farage’s criticism was also part of a much larger political attack on Keir Starmer.
Reform has sought to portray Labour as unwilling or unable to take sufficiently strong action on immigration.
Labour, by contrast, has argued that the asylum accommodation problem was inherited from previous governments and that it is working to close hotels while speeding up asylum decisions and removals.
The government has also emphasized the importance of tackling people-smuggling gangs rather than focusing exclusively on the accommodation of people who have already arrived.
This produces two fundamentally different approaches.
Reform emphasizes deterrence, stronger border controls and deportation.
Labour emphasizes enforcement alongside processing, international cooperation and the gradual closure of the hotel estate.
The political disagreement is therefore not simply about one hotel.
It reflects competing ideas about how Britain should manage asylum and immigration.
The Bell Hotel’s eventual closure
The story subsequently developed further.
In June 2026, Epping Forest District Council announced that the Home Office had confirmed that its contract with the Bell Hotel would end. The council said the hotel would cease being used as asylum accommodation by July 11, 2026, with those staying there being relocated elsewhere in the asylum estate.
This later development is important because it shows that the immediate court ruling was not the final chapter in the hotel’s story.
The hotel eventually stopped being used for asylum accommodation, although the wider political debate surrounding the events in Epping continued.
For Farage and Reform supporters, the eventual closure could be presented as evidence that pressure from local communities and political opponents had helped force change.
For the government, the closure was consistent with its stated objective of reducing and eventually ending reliance on asylum hotels.
The same event could therefore be interpreted very differently depending on the political perspective.
Immigration remains a major dividing line
The Epping controversy illustrates why immigration remains one of the most difficult issues in British politics.
There are competing concerns that cannot easily be separated.
People want secure borders.
Local communities want their concerns to be taken seriously.
Asylum seekers have legal protections.
Governments have responsibilities under domestic and international law.
Councils have planning powers.
Police forces have responsibilities for maintaining public order.
And ministers must manage the cost of the asylum system.
These responsibilities can sometimes pull in different directions.
The argument becomes even more difficult when individual cases involve allegations of serious criminal offences.
It is important, however, to distinguish allegations from convictions. The fact that someone staying at an asylum hotel is accused of a crime does not establish that every asylum seeker in that hotel presents a danger to the community.
Similarly, concerns raised by residents should not automatically be dismissed simply because immigration is politically controversial.
A functioning system has to address both public safety and individual legal rights.
What the dispute means for Reform UK
For Nigel Farage, the Epping controversy fits closely with Reform UK’s broader political message.
The party has positioned itself as a challenger to the established political system and has repeatedly argued that successive governments have failed to control immigration effectively.
The Bell Hotel became a highly visible example of the disagreement.
Farage’s claim that asylum seekers had “more rights” than British people was a political statement about what he sees as an imbalance in the system, rather than a description of the court’s actual legal finding. The Court of Appeal’s judgment did not establish such a general hierarchy of rights.
Nevertheless, the phrase captured the frustration at the heart of Reform’s campaign.
It is a simple political message aimed at a complicated legal and administrative problem.
Whether voters accept that argument depends on how they assess competing priorities: immigration control, legal obligations, public safety, government spending and the interests of local communities.
A continuing national debate
The Epping hotel controversy ultimately became much larger than the Bell Hotel itself.
It brought together questions about asylum, human rights, planning law, community relations, public protest and political accountability.
The Court of Appeal decision allowed asylum seekers to remain at the hotel at that stage, while the government continued to argue that asylum hotels should eventually be closed.
The later closure of the Bell Hotel showed that the accommodation arrangement was not permanent.
But the political argument remains.
Farage continues to use immigration as one of Reform UK’s defining issues, while Labour faces pressure to demonstrate that it can reduce reliance on hotels and improve the wider asylum system.
The Conservatives have also sought to challenge Labour from the right on immigration.
For voters, the Epping episode offers a useful example of the difference between political promises and the practical realities of government.
Closing a hotel, processing an asylum claim, deporting someone who has no legal right to remain and negotiating with another country are all different processes involving different legal powers.
The controversy surrounding the Bell Hotel demonstrates how quickly those separate issues can become intertwined.
Farage’s furious reaction ensured that the court ruling became a national political story. His claim that “illegal migrants have more rights than the British people” became a rallying point for his criticism of Labour, while the courts’ reasoning focused on much narrower questions of law and procedure.
Ultimately, the Epping dispute highlights the continuing challenge facing every British government: how to maintain effective immigration control while respecting the legal framework governing asylum seekers and managing the concerns of local communities.
That debate is unlikely to disappear.
And as Reform UK continues to make immigration one of its central political themes, incidents such as the Bell Hotel controversy are likely to remain important parts of the wider argument over Britain’s borders, asylum system and relationship with human-rights law.