UK Asylum Appeals Surge Leaves Thousands of Migrants in Hotels for Years

[Social Media]

 

Asylum Appeals Surge Leaves Thousands of Migrants in Hotels for Years

 

Tens of thousands of failed asylum seekers remain housed in hotels across the UK due to a spiralling backlog in appeals, with new figures revealing that over 50,000 migrants are still awaiting hearings despite having initial claims rejected. The soaring number of appeals and unprecedented delays in the system mean many individuals are spending years in publicly funded accommodation.

 

 

As of March, there were 50,976 outstanding asylum appeals—almost twice the number from the previous year and seven times higher than in 2023. This figure represents the highest backlog of asylum appeals ever recorded. On average, it now takes 54 weeks for these cases to be heard in court, the first time such proceedings have taken longer than a year.

 

Colin Yeo, an immigration barrister, told The Times that even this figure may underestimate the true wait time. "The 54 weeks refers to cases that entered the system back in 2024, when the backlog was significantly smaller," he said, implying that current claimants could wait far longer.

 

This delay is in addition to the wait asylum seekers face before even receiving an initial decision. Around one-third of all asylum cases—about 25,000 over the past year—have been pending for more than 12 months. As a result, many individuals end up waiting over two years for a final resolution.

 

The longer they remain in the country, the greater their chances of avoiding removal due to rights acquired during their stay, such as protections under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which shields relationships formed while residing in a host nation.

 

These figures present a serious challenge to the government, particularly after Chancellor Rachel Reeves pledged earlier this month to move all asylum seekers out of hotels by 2029. Yet the daily arrival of migrants continues. More than 1,000 people crossed into the UK over Friday and Saturday alone, pushing the total this year to 18,400—a record high and 45 percent more than during the same period in 2024.

 

Part of the surge in appeals stems from a dramatic drop in the success rate of initial claims. Only 43 percent of asylum applications were granted in the first quarter of 2025, compared to 75 percent in 2023. In response, the government is attempting to impose a mandatory 24-week deadline for appeals to be heard through the new Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. However, this reform is unlikely to be implemented before year’s end.

 

Labour has yet to clarify how this legal deadline will be enforced, particularly given existing systemic strains. A severe shortage of qualified lawyers and limited court time has left many claimants without representation. In fact, only about half of asylum seekers are able to secure legal counsel. As a result, many cases are adjourned or involve self-representation, which can extend hearings sixfold.

 

To address the legal bottleneck, the Ministry of Justice plans to raise legal aid fees by 10 percent, bringing rates up to £69 per hour to attract more immigration lawyers. But this measure, too, won’t take effect until later this year.

 

The appeals backlog compounds an already critical problem: the 78,745 asylum claims still awaiting initial decisions. Thousands of failed applicants remain in the UK, often due to logistical and legal barriers to removal. Those deemed destitute by the Home Office receive free housing and a £50 weekly allowance. By the end of March, 106,771 asylum seekers were receiving this support, including 32,345 placed in hotels and 66,683 in dispersal accommodation such as shared houses and flats. While dispersal housing costs £14 per night, hotel stays average £144—nearly ten times more.

 

Although there has been a push to speed up initial asylum decisions—with 11,000 processed each month, up from a low of just 2,110 in July 2024—concerns are mounting over the quality of decisions. There are early signs that more appeals are being upheld, which could further strain an already overwhelmed system. The Home Office, which represents the government in 95 percent of appeals, is now facing an unsustainable workload.

 

  Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Times  2025-06-24

 

 

[James105]

3 hours ago, Social Media said:

To address the legal bottleneck, the Ministry of Justice plans to raise legal aid fees by 10 percent, bringing rates up to £69 per hour to attract more immigration lawyers. But this measure, too, won’t take effect until later this year.

 

The legal aid system was designed to provide a reasonable defence for British citizens when accused of a serious crime and is paid for by UK taxpayers.    To provide this for dinghy illegals at the cost of £69 per hour per illegal is insulting.     If there was anyone of any reasonable intelligence in government then the illegal dinghy arrivals would be made to fund their own appeals and accommodation or give them a choice of accepting a free flight home.   Then there would be no backlog and the hotels would magically empty.    

[The Cyclist]

4 hours ago, Social Media said:

Tens of thousands of failed asylum seekers remain housed in hotels across the UK due to a spiralling backlog in appeals,

 

Add another 2000 that have landed in the last 6 days.

 

Smash those gangs Starmer, smash those gangs.

 

You clueless, spineless wretch of a human being.

[mikeymike100]

50 minutes ago, James105 said:

 

The legal aid system was designed to provide a reasonable defence for British citizens when accused of a serious crime and is paid for by UK taxpayers.    To provide this for dinghy illegals at the cost of £69 per hour per illegal is insulting.     If there was anyone of any reasonable intelligence in government then the illegal dinghy arrivals would be made to fund their own appeals and accommodation or give them a choice of accepting a free flight home.   Then there would be no backlog and the hotels would magically empty.    

Absolutely, whatever happens its UK taxpayer that foots the bill as usual!

[thesetat]

4 hours ago, Social Media said:

The soaring number of appeals and unprecedented delays in the system mean many individuals are spending years in publicly funded accommodation.

I wonder how many homeless UK citizens get put up into hotels waiting for work or a home with the tax-payers flipping the bill? 

[impulse]

Rwanda's looking better and better.  Or maybe they can work a deal with El Salvador.

 

[Watawattana]

43 minutes ago, thesetat said:

I wonder how many homeless UK citizens get put up into hotels waiting for work or a home with the tax-payers flipping the bill? 

Zero, or maybe even less than that.

[Watawattana]

If they are being housed in Peckham, couldn't Del or Rodney have helped?

[MalcolmB]

We only have ourselves to blame for not getting on top of the situation.

Can’t blame the poor refugees for our incompetence 

 

[James105]

37 minutes ago, MalcolmB said:

We only have ourselves to blame for not getting on top of the situation.

Can’t blame the poor refugees for our incompetence 

 

 

Incorrect.  Perhaps the 20% of the electorate who voted for Labour this time should shoulder some of the responsibility for this mess, but the electorate has consistently voted for much, much less immigration and zero illegal immigration.  The majority of UK citizens are not to blame for this, but the self serving clowns in the government and civil service who have consistently blocked any efforts to deal with this situation are at fault here.   If (or more likely when) civil unrest occurs as a result of the failure of to implement the will of the electorate then the blame should lay squarely at the feet of government.   

[MalcolmB]

3 minutes ago, James105 said:

f the electorate then the blame should lay squarely at the feet of government.   

Who we voted in.

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, James105 said:

 

Incorrect.  Perhaps the 20% of the electorate who voted for Labour this time should shoulder some of the responsibility for this mess, but the electorate has consistently voted for much, much less immigration and zero illegal immigration.  The majority of UK citizens are not to blame for this, but the self serving clowns in the government and civil service who have consistently blocked any efforts to deal with this situation are at fault here.   If (or more likely when) civil unrest occurs as a result of the failure of to implement the will of the electorate then the blame should lay squarely at the feet of government.   

It wasn’t Labour that created the backlog.

[NoshowJones]

13 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It wasn’t Labour that created the backlog.

It was Labour that promised to do something about these parasites landing in their boats and did nothing. Just another of their broken promises. Get them out as soon as possible and vote Reform.

[James105]

8 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It wasn’t Labour that created the backlog.

 

The Tory "plan" which never got off the ground was to process the asylum claims in Rwanda which created the backlog as they wanted to send claimants there for processing.   The reason this never got off the ground is due to civil service whingers, LibDems posing as Tories and Labour not supporting the plan to such an extent they ditched it on the first day they got into government without having any other kind of plan to replace it.  "Smashing the gangs" was not a plan, will never be a plan, and is as vacuous a statement as "fixing the foundations" or "22 million black hole".       

 

Labour have created the backlog by speeding up the processing, and since most illegal dinghy arrivals are economic migrants or worse (terrorists, rapists etc) their asylum claims are rightly rejected.  Labour didn't have a plan for this either so now the illegals are festering in hotels and getting legal aid giving them an opportunity to come up with numerous reasons to stay, such as impregnating someone, converting to being gay/christian etc.   

 

So yes, it is Labour who are responsible for this as despite having 14 years to come up with some kind of plan, they didn't.  So we are where we are.   

[The Cyclist]

22 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It wasn’t Labour that created the backlog.

 

But it was Labour that caused the forerunner by not jumping on the Sangatte Camps of the 90's from a great height.

 

That is how long Illegals have been flocking into the UK, by car, lorry, train, plane and now dinghies.

 

 

[MalcolmB]

4 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

But it was Labour that caused the forerunner by not jumping on the Sangatte Camps of the 90's from a great height.

 

That is how long Illegals have been flocking into the UK, by car, lorry, train, plane and now dinghies.

 

 

Anyway, it is not as if the refugees are getting this money.

It goes to the British hotel owners who are fully booked.

[Photoguy21]

Kick them all out of the country back to where they say they come from. If the countries wont accept them back put sanctions on the country as in all probability the UK has trade with them in one form or another.

[roquefort]

34 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It wasn’t Labour that created the backlog.

That's the spirit. Backs to the wall, but never admit to the bleedin' obvious.

[The Cyclist]

10 minutes ago, MalcolmB said:

Anyway, it is not as if the refugees are getting this money.

It goes to the British hotel owners who are fully booked.

 

14 posts in and you win the internet for the most stupid post on the thread.

 

Congratulations.

 

It takes a special person to beat the Chomper.

[Chomper Higgot]

 

 

48 minutes ago, James105 said:

 

The Tory "plan" which never got off the ground was to process the asylum claims in Rwanda which created the backlog as they wanted to send claimants there for processing.   The reason this never got off the ground is due to civil service whingers, LibDems posing as Tories and Labour not supporting the plan to such an extent they ditched it on the first day they got into government without having any other kind of plan to replace it.  "Smashing the gangs" was not a plan, will never be a plan, and is as vacuous a statement as "fixing the foundations" or "22 million black hole".       

 

Labour have created the backlog by speeding up the processing, and since most illegal dinghy arrivals are economic migrants or worse (terrorists, rapists etc) their asylum claims are rightly rejected.  Labour didn't have a plan for this either so now the illegals are festering in hotels and getting legal aid giving them an opportunity to come up with numerous reasons to stay, such as impregnating someone, converting to being gay/christian etc.   

 

So yes, it is Labour who are responsible for this as despite having 14 years to come up with some kind of plan, they didn't.  So we are where we are.  

A nice bit of revisionism.

 

The reality is the Tory Government had an unassailable majority in Parliament, no other party could challenge their Rwanda policy.

 

It failed because it was ill conceived and in breach of UK law.

 

£700,000,000 of tax payer’s money pished away deporting 4 migrants, all of whom were volunteers.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

21 minutes ago, roquefort said:

That's the spirit. Backs to the wall, but never admit to the bleedin' obvious.

 

Another failure passed on to Labour:

[roquefort]

24 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

Another failure passed on to Labour:

 

1,000 across the Channel last weekend. YTD 50% higher than last year,

[The Cyclist]

41 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The reality is the Tory Government had an unassailable majority in Parliament, no other party could challenge their Rwanda policy.

 

 

Parliament wasn't the issue.

 

The Rwanda Act received Royal Assent on 25 04 2024 and became British Law.

 

The issue was Lawfare, from Starmer downwards.

 

Not often that you are correct, but you are wrong again.

 

45 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

£700,000,000 of tax payer’s money pished away deporting 4 migrants, all of whom were volunteers.

 

No different to the £700,000,000 thrown at France. Roaring success, which is just as well, as only 2000 made it across in the last 6 days.

 

Sarcasm may have been used in that final sentence.

[James105]

39 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

 

A nice bit of revisionism.

 

The reality is the Tory Government had an unassailable majority in Parliament, no other party could challenge their Rwanda policy.

 

It failed because it was ill conceived and in breach of UK law.

 

£700,000,000 of tax payer’s money pished away deporting 4 migrants, all of whom were volunteers.

 

 

 

A Tory party made up of some actual tories, some Lib dems pretending they are conservative and even some Labour types pretending to be conservative is about as far from an unassailable majority as you can get.   Parliament makes the UK laws so if they had what you said they had (an unassailable majority) then obviously they could have changed the law to enact their policies.   Saying that something a majority government wants to enact is "in breach of UK law" when they can change the law suggests a childlike grasp of how UK parliament works.

 

The money didn't have to be wasted.   That was Labour's choice and since they have been scrambling around looking for 3rd countries to extract failed asylum seekers to then I'd suggest that they know themselves now that it was stupidity of the highest order to cancel it on day one to make their ridiculous student activist points.   

 

Don't worry, it's gone far enough now that the next government will be an actual right wing government that will tackle this problem.   A left wing government could deal with this problem (look at Denmark) and even Labour could make up their lost ground by literally copying their left wing counterparts in Denmark, but they won't, because they are moronic clowns.   

[billd766]

2 hours ago, MalcolmB said:

Who we voted in.

This (we) did NOT vote them in.

[Hanaguma]

You folks need someone to do MEGA- Make England Great Again.  

 

[Tiger1980]

3 hours ago, James105 said:

 

The Tory "plan" which never got off the ground was to process the asylum claims in Rwanda which created the backlog as they wanted to send claimants there for processing.   The reason this never got off the ground is due to civil service whingers, LibDems posing as Tories and Labour not supporting the plan to such an extent they ditched it on the first day they got into government without having any other kind of plan to replace it.  "Smashing the gangs" was not a plan, will never be a plan, and is as vacuous a statement as "fixing the foundations" or "22 million black hole".       

 

Labour have created the backlog by speeding up the processing, and since most illegal dinghy arrivals are economic migrants or worse (terrorists, rapists etc) their asylum claims are rightly rejected.  Labour didn't have a plan for this either so now the illegals are festering in hotels and getting legal aid giving them an opportunity to come up with numerous reasons to stay, such as impregnating someone, converting to being gay/christian etc.   

 

So yes, it is Labour who are responsible for this as despite having 14 years to come up with some kind of plan, they didn't.  So we are where we are.   

  Unfortunately you are wrong on one point, nearly 50% of asylum claims are accepted, those who fail the initial application then go on to appeal ( at a high cost to the tax payer) of these approximately 50% are successful so the full figure is a 75% acceptance rate.

[Tiger1980]

3 hours ago, MalcolmB said:

Anyway, it is not as if the refugees are getting this money.

It goes to the British hotel owners who are fully booked.

  
Unfortunately many of these illegal Economic migrants are in fact working, including those earning up to £1,000 per day tax free as delivery drivers for Deliveroo,while at the same time being housed in hotels with free meals and a weekly money allowance from the taxpayers.

[Tiger1980]

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

 

A nice bit of revisionism.

 

The reality is the Tory Government had an unassailable majority in Parliament, no other party could challenge their Rwanda policy.

 

It failed because it was ill conceived and in breach of UK law.

 

£700,000,000 of tax payer’s money pished away deporting 4 migrants, all of whom were volunteers.

 

 

It broke the ECHR laws as judged by foreign judges sitting in Strasbourg.unfortunately no British governments have had the balls to implement the British electorate wish to ignore their decisions. Unlike the French and others who do when it suits them.