Epping Residents Threaten Council Tax Boycott Over Asylum Hotel Ruling

Published: 1 September 2025. The English Chronicle Desk

Tensions have escalated in the town of Epping after a ruling by the Court of Appeal permitted asylum seekers to remain at the Bell Hotel, overturning an earlier High Court order that had called for their removal. The decision has triggered outrage among many local residents, several of whom have declared they will refuse to pay council tax until the accommodation is closed. Some have even gone so far as to state they are prepared to risk imprisonment over the issue.

The Bell Hotel, currently housing 138 asylum seekers, has been at the centre of controversy throughout the summer. Protests erupted after a serious criminal case involving one resident came to light, when 38-year-old Ethiopian national Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu was charged with sexual assault on a 14-year-old girl and another woman. Kebatu denies the allegations and is presently standing trial at Colchester Magistrates Court. While the charges remain to be determined in court, the incident has intensified the sense of insecurity among locals, many of whom argue that their community has been placed under strain.

Residents have expressed deep frustration following Friday’s ruling. Sarah White, a mother of three living near the hotel, described feeling “very vulnerable” and questioned the legitimacy of continuing to pay local taxes, saying: “What is the point of paying our council tax if it is being directly used to fund a place which houses alleged sex attackers?” Another resident, who requested anonymity, declared that the threat of prison was of little consequence compared to their opposition to the hotel, stating: “The feeling is so strong that the threat of prison does not worry me. I will go to jail for this.”

Younger voices have also joined the dissent. Sarah Corner, 20, insisted that enough was enough, stressing that local taxes were funding the upkeep of the hotel and related security costs. “Our taxes are funding the hotel, the police and all the costs associated with it. That’s not what it should be for,” she said.

Not all responses have been negative. Some asylum seekers have expressed gratitude for the court’s decision, including 24-year-old Khadar Mohamed from Somalia, who praised the government for allowing them to stay. “I want to say thank you Keir Starmer and his Government. I am delighted with the news, wow. That is really amazing,” he said.

The local authority has made clear that it does not intend to let the matter rest. Epping Forest District Council has vowed to continue pursuing every legal and political option available, including a possible appeal to the Supreme Court, in order to bring the use of the Bell Hotel as migrant accommodation to an end. A spokesperson stated: “We will continue to fight on every front, using the democratic, diplomatic, legal, and political means available, until the Hotel is closed.”

Local Conservative councillor Holly Whitbread urged residents not to withhold council tax, warning that doing so would risk unnecessary penalties and legal consequences. She instead advised channeling anger and frustration toward the central government, arguing that responsibility for asylum policies lay with national leadership rather than the local council.

The issue has also drawn strong political reaction at the national level. Reform UK leader Nigel Farage condemned the ruling in characteristically blunt terms, claiming: “Illegal migrants have more rights than the British people under Starmer.” His deputy, Richard Tice, echoed the sentiment, arguing that judges had sided “with illegal migrants against British people,” and insisting that only his party could bring an end to what he described as “insanity.”

As the dispute unfolds, Epping has become a microcosm of wider debates across the United Kingdom about asylum policy, community safety, and the obligations of local taxpayers. With another hearing scheduled next month, uncertainty continues to hang over both the future of the Bell Hotel and the relationship between the government, the courts, and the community at the centre of the controversy.

The English Chronicle Online will continue to follow developments in this case closely as the legal and political battles progress and as residents weigh how far they are willing to go in their protest.