High Court Orders Asylum Seekers' Removal from Bell Hotel After Protests Rock Essex Town

Bell Hotel at the Center of Growing Tensions in Epping

Few places in Essex have made headlines this summer like the Bell Hotel. For months, this once-ordinary hotel in Epping found itself at the eye of a political storm. It all erupted when word got out that Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu, an Ethiopian asylum seeker living at the hotel, had been charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl. Kebatu has denied the charges and is set for trial soon—but the case quickly ignited something far bigger than any single court proceeding.

News spread fast through the town, sparking a wave of protests outside the Bell Hotel. Hundreds of people gathered—some outraged local residents, others members of organized far-right groups. Chants like “save our kids” and “send them home” rang through the streets. What started as peaceful demonstrations turned violent, leading to arrests and injured police officers. At one point, at least 16 people faced charges, and police described the situation as outright criminal disorder. Far-right agitators weren’t the only voices outside the hotel; anti-racism protesters turned up too, pushing tensions even higher.

For asylum seekers living inside the Bell Hotel, it was nothing short of terrifying. The charity Care4Calais described how some residents were threatened, chased, and had objects thrown at them. Anxiety and frustration spread among the hotel’s guests, who already faced uncertainty about their future in the UK. The hotel became an unwilling symbol of the pressure points in Britain’s immigration system.

Courtroom Battle and Political Drama

Epping Forest District Council decided it had seen enough. In court, their barrister, Philip Coppel, called the hotel a "feeding ground for unrest." The council wasn’t just worried about the safety of the hotel’s residents—they were worried for the whole community. They asked the High Court to step in, requesting an interim injunction that would force the hotel’s owner to move everyone out by September next year.

The case attracted plenty of political attention. The Home Office made a late attempt to block the council’s bid. Their lawyer argued that the Bell Hotel was vital for housing asylum seekers and any ruling could disrupt the government’s ability to provide shelter for those in need. But Judge Stephen Eyre rejected the arguments and sided with the council. The government’s failed intervention made it clear just how much pressure the UK's asylum system is under.

Politicians rushed to respond. Angela Eagle, the Border Security Minister, said the government planned to phase out asylum hotels altogether by 2029, promising closer work with local councils and communities. Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, never one to avoid controversy, celebrated the ruling as a win and urged others to follow Epping’s lead.

The owner of the Bell Hotel has already vowed to appeal, but for now, the clock is ticking. There's no word yet on where all the asylum seekers will be moved. Critics stress the disruption this decision could bring to already vulnerable people, while supporters argue it’s a necessary step for restoring calm to the town.

The wider impact is hard to ignore. Many in local government are watching closely—if Epping’s approach stands, more councils may head to the courts. There are real fears that this ruling could open a wave of copycat legal battles from other communities struggling with the same uneasy mix of migration, outrage, and misinformation.

This isn’t the first time unrest over migrant accommodation has boiled over in recent years. Not long ago, riots broke out elsewhere after rumors—later debunked—spread about a migrant’s involvement in another high-profile crime. Authorities aren’t taking chances; extra police patrols are now a given around asylum hotels across the country, including Epping.

While the Bell Hotel story is still far from finished, what’s certain is that the debate over how and where to house asylum seekers in Britain is heating up fast. The Epping decision could just be the opening chapter.