Court highlights difference between asylum accommodation and accommodation provided under schedule 10

The High Court has said that in cases where accommodation is provided under schedule 10 of the Immigration Act 2016, location can in some circumstances be relevant to the Home Office’s assessment of the suitability of the accommodation. This is in contrast to the “no choice” basis under the Allocation of Asylum Accommodation policy. The case is R (Ho) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 2641 (Admin).

The claimant is a 69 year old Malaysian national who states that he arrived in the UK in 1999 on a tourist visa and subsequently overstayed. He moved to Southend in August 2006 until August 2024 when immigration officers attended his address looking for someone else.

He was detained at Tinsley House immigration removal centre and served with a notice of removal. An application for leave to remain under the 20 year private life route was submitted on 26 September 2024. On the same day he applied for immigration bail accommodation and schedule 10 support and he asked to be located in Essex, preferably Southend. The claimant was released on immigration bail on 20 October 2024.

On 23 October 2024 he was granted bail accommodation under schedule 10 but his request to be located in Essex was refused. The decision letter stated “we do not consider there are compelling circumstances that make it appropriate to agree to your request. Dispersal will now be on a no choice basis”. The claimant was relocated to Sheffield.

The claimant challenged this decision by judicial review, raising his links to Essex, his age and medical conditions and the impact and social isolation he was experiencing in Sheffield. A further decision was issued on 12 June 2025 providing additional reasons for refusing the request, including:

It is noted you were able to establish a support network within the area despite having no previous connection to it on arrival and that you are capable of establishing a similar network in an area of relocation. As a result, it is not accepted that access to your raised support network is sufficiently exceptional to displace the no choice accommodation policy.

There were four grounds of challenge:

•    Ground 1: the Defendant misdirected herself as to the applicable law and policy in relation to immigration bail accommodation under Paragraph 9 of Schedule 10 to the [Immigration] Act.

•    Ground 2: the Defendant, in determining where the allocated accommodation would be located, (i) failed to take into account the Claimant’s particular circumstances, (ii) failed to give adequate reasons and/or (iii) acted irrationally.

•    Ground 3: the Defendant breached Section 6 (1) of the Human Rights Act in respect of her violation of the Claimant’s procedural and substantive rights under Article 8 of the ECHR.

•    Ground 4: the Defendant failed to comply with Section 149 of the Equality Act in respect of the Claimant’s disability.

The latter two grounds were dismissed. On the first ground, it was argued on behalf of the claimant that it was unlawful for the Home Secretary to apply the “stated equivalence policy” and as a result of that, the Allocation of Asylum Accommodation policy in a schedule 10 case.

The stated equivalence policy is where schedule 10 accommodation is provided by the Home Office on the same “no choice” basis as under the Allocation of Asylum Accommodation policy (set out in R (BLZ) v SSHD [2025] EWHC 153 (Admin)). The claimant submitted that “the two accommodation policies are different and that the unwritten policy of applying the standard equivalence policy means that the two policies are elided”.

It was accepted on behalf of the Home Secretary that the schedule 10 guidance applied, and if the application of the stated equivalence policy and the Allocation policy resulted in a breach of the schedule 10 guidance then the decision would be unlawful.

The court found that in contrast to the Allocation of Asylum Accommodation policy, under the schedule 10 guidance, location could “in appropriate circumstances, inform the decision as to suitability of accommodation”. As location had not been taken into account when assessing the suitability of accommodation in the claimant’s case, the court held that the decision was unlawful on that basis.

The court also accepted the claimant’s submissions on ground 2, stating that “the June 2025 letter also fails to give adequate reasons precisely because the reasons are directed to the wrong policy”. The decision was quashed and the Home Secretary ordered to make a new decision applying the schedule 10 guidance.

The decision also contains an important reminder of the Civil Procedure Rules relating to foreign language witness statements. The claimant’s solicitors were criticised for the claimant’s witness statements’ being provided in English when the claimant’s main language is Cantonese. The changes to the rules were made in April 2020 but lawyers have been caught out on multiple occasions since then.