Latest Home Office figures show about a third of all asylum seekers arrive via the Channel (Image: Getty)
Asylum seekers are trying to force the Home Office to give them new homes with upgraded facilities in better locations than the “shared” lodgings being provided, Express.co.uk can reveal.
Claims believed to be sometimes funded by taxpayers through Legal Aid are making their way to the High Court where top judges consider if they should be moved or not.
In the latest case to go to the High Court, three brothers from Iran have asked for a house they can live in “within a reasonable traveling distance from London.”
At a hearing on Tuesday, the Honorable Mr Justice Sheldon gave the three men anonymity referring to the lead claimant as MZD.
He gave the Home Office seven days to file a defense statement.
Judge Sheldon wrote in his order: “The Claimant is an asylum seeker from Iran. The Claimant and his two brothers have outstanding appeals of refusals of their asylum claims. They are all being accommodated in a shared accommodation facility: they each have their own bedrooms. , but share communal facilities with other men.”
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper is facing claims over asylum seeker accommodation (Image: Getty)
READ MORE: EU civil war as Hungary plans to 'bus migrants to Brussels' over £168m spat
It said the lead claimant has alleged that he was victim to extreme sexual abuse and violence from an older male relative and his stepmother and now suffers with “moderate depressive disorder as well as PTSD.”
“There is also recent evidence of self-harming and suicidal thoughts,” the judge said.
He added: “The Claimant seeks interim relief: namely, an order that the Defendant provide him and his brothers with adequate accommodation together – either self-contained accommodation or a shared house – within a reasonable traveling distance from London…
“The Defendant may have something to say, for instance, about the quality of the evidence relating to the claimant, especially as there does not appear to be any reference to mental health issues in the claimant's dealings with his GP.
“The Defendant may also have something to say about the nature of the current accommodation and the availability of the accommodation that the claimant seeks.”
The case was adjourned.
In 2022 it emerged that, in the financial year 2021-22, it cost the taxpayer almost £1bn to house asylum seekers with £922m spent on hotel accommodation for them.
Each person is provided with three meals a day, all bills paid for, a weekly allowance and access to health and social care all on the taxpayer.
But, the case was just one of a number of similar ones seen by Express.co.uk, with other applicants branding the full-board hotel accommodation provided by the Home Office at a cost of millions of pounds per year as “grossly inadequate”. to their requirements.
In one other case to go before the same court, concerning a woman and her four children, including a disabled daughter, the judge wrote: “The first claimant and her children are asylum-seekers who are accommodated by the defendant pursuant to section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1995.
“The claimants allege the conditions in the hotel accommodation where they have been accommodated since August 12 2021 are grossly inadequate for the family and particularly for the third claimant's needs.”
In a further judgment following a separate preliminary hearing, the judge said it was alleged by the applicant that the Home Office acted “unlawfully” by providing accommodation in a small hotel room for a family of four too far from support services and her children's school.
Other claims have complained of “overcrowded” accommodation or not having good enough facilities and delays in being moved to longer-term housing.
Alp Mehmet, chairman of the campaign group MigrationWatch UK, said: “This smacks of being born of legal opportunism similar to adverts in holding centers and prisons offering advice on how to mount legal challenges to removal.
“Needless to say, legal aid would underpin such action. Perhaps those complaining are doing so having been led to believe by their traffickers that they would be provided with houses on arrival. Is this also a case of biting the hand that's feeding you?”
At least 12 migrants dead after boat sinks crossing Channel
But, charity Refugee Action has warned the claims are to be expected due to the poor standard of accommodation some refugees have faced.
Tim Naor Hilton, Chief Executive of the charity, previously claimed: “Families are squeezed into unfit hotels and slum housing. Meanwhile the private companies who provide asylum accommodation are able to rack up huge profits thanks to the golden contracts they have with the Home Office. The legal challenges will continue until the government decides to ditch the hostility and put people in homes that are fit and appropriate.”
The Home Office refused to release the number of how many similar claims it has faced or how many people it has had to move.
However, it confirmed it has already had to offer alternative housing to some families after losing some cases, while saying it has also successfully defended other claims.
A spokesperson said: “It is longstanding government policy that we do not comment on individual cases or ongoing legal matters.
“We take the health and well-being of asylum seekers seriously and at every stage in the process will seek to ensure that all needs and vulnerabilities are identified and considered, including those related to mental health and trauma.
“The cost of hotels housing asylum seekers is around £6 million a day.”
A Ministry of Justice spokesperson added: “Judicial review cases are generally within the scope of civil legal aid services. Cases must have the potential to produce a benefit for the individual, a member of the individual's family or the environment.
“Applications for judicial review are subject to a merits test and a financial eligibility test in accordance with the statutory framework.”