This study aims to contribute to an understanding of how the credibility of asylum-seekers is being assessed in the UK; how narratives are valued by decision-makers and tribunal judges, how applicants’ credibility is determined, and what issues may be found with this process. I conducted interviews with seven lawyers who represent asylum-seekers, one decision-maker and one retired tribunal judge to establish their perspectives on the assessment of credibility in the UK. I then analysed these results through the theoretical framework of the sociology of law, focusing on the theories of Pierre Bourdieu and Michel Foucault. I firstly examined specific problematic areas in the practice of credibility assessment, before going on to explore broader contextual factors which may help to explain such issues. This study found that the greatest problems with credibility assessment in practice were demanding expectations of asylum-seekers and misapplication of the government guidelines on credibility, miscommunications and mistranslations, and a lack of considered reasoning in decision-making. These issues were shown to be driven by five main factors: a culture of disbelief, a lack of resources, information and communication issues, ineffective guidelines and the inherently subjective nature of credibility. The results of this study bring into question the neutrality and efficacy of the current system of credibility assessment in practice and its capacity to protect those fleeing persecution under the 1951 Refugee Convention.