In November 2019, the Edinburgh court of sessions upheld a decision that held Serco’s policy of changing the locks on the homes of refused asylum seekers was not in contravention of Scottish housing law or human rights legislation. This was later upheld by the UK Supreme Court

Human rights campaigners have criticised what they see as the outsourcing of human rights obligations, as the court ruled that Serco is not bound by human rights obligations because it is not a public body. With the increasing privatisation of public services, the implications of this ruling could be serious.

Judith Robertson, Chair of the Scottish Human Rights Commission said: “We have serious concerns about the implications of this ruling, both for the people directly affected and for the protection of human rights more broadly. The court’s finding that Serco is not acting as a public authority in this context, and therefore is not bound by human rights legal obligations, has profound consequences for how people’s rights are protected when public services are delivered by private providers.”

Serco's Julia Rogers said Scotland's highest court was clear that its approach was "completely proper and within the law".

She said Serco had been demonised and subject to extreme criticism despite spending millions of pounds supporting people who no longer had a right to remain in the UK.