High Court Condemns Hounslow Council for Failing Orphaned Child to Cut Costs
A High Court has delivered a damning verdict against Hounslow Council, ruling that the local authority acted unlawfully by failing an orphaned child and leaving him living in what the judge described as "squalid conditions". The court found that the council's primary motivation was to avoid the substantial financial burden of taking the child on as officially "looked after" under section 20 duties.
Child Left in Legal Limbo After Becoming Orphan
The case centres on a child, referred to as Child X in court documents, who lost both parents by the age of 11. His mother passed away in 2018, followed by his father during the Covid pandemic in 2020. The child had been living in a Hounslow Council house, but following his father's death, complex tenancy succession laws meant he technically became a "trespasser" in his own family home.
After a brief period staying with a neighbour, the council orchestrated an arrangement where a distant cousin moved in to care for Child X and his sister. However, this private fostering arrangement quickly proved inadequate, with the cousin being frequently absent and negligent in their care responsibilities.
Council's Financial Motivations Exposed
The court judgement was particularly scathing about the council's decision-making process, stating it "bears the hallmarks of a retrospective attempt to categorise the arrangement to fit a desired financial outcome". By insisting the arrangement was purely private, Hounslow Council avoided the full financial and legal obligations that would have applied had the child been designated as officially "looked after".
These obligations would have included:
- Substantial funding for appropriate housing
- Regular maintenance payments
- Comprehensive social work support
- Legal protections for the child's welfare
When the cousin stopped paying rent, instead of evicting them or taking the children into proper care, the council paid the arrears themselves. The court viewed this as clear evidence that Hounslow Council was actively "providing accommodation" to maintain the inadequate arrangement.
Systemic Failures and Squalid Living Conditions
In mid-2025, the situation deteriorated further when the cousin abandoned the children completely. The family home fell into serious disrepair, with the children living in conditions described by the court as "squalid". This occurred despite multiple concerns being raised by both the children themselves and numerous social workers involved in the case.
Deputy High Court Judge Benjamin Douglas-Jones KC rejected the council's argument that the child did not "require accommodation" because he was physically living in a house, dismissing this as "circular reasoning". The judge ruled that the council could not use its own decision not to evict the child as justification for claiming he didn't need proper help and support.
Legal Experts Welcome Landmark Ruling
The case was brought by Coram Children's Legal Centre, with Senior Solicitor Kelly Everett stating: "For too long, children who have nobody to care for them have been let down by systems that are meant to protect them. This ruling makes clear that local authorities must meet their legal duties to vulnerable children."
Everett emphasised that the judgement reinforces several crucial principles:
- Informal arrangements cannot be used to avoid statutory responsibilities
- Children should not be left in legal limbo without proper protections
- A child's legal status has profound consequences for their safety and future
- Local authorities must be held accountable for their decisions
Council Response and Ongoing Proceedings
A Hounslow Council spokesperson responded cautiously, noting: "Proceedings are ongoing and we are considering the implications of this judgment, which highlights the delicate balance Local Authorities are required to perform when considering how best to exercise their statutory responsibilities."
The spokesperson added that their priority remains safeguarding and supporting children within our community, but declined to comment further due to the ongoing nature of the proceedings and concerns about private family information.
This landmark case sends a powerful message about children's rights and the legal obligations of local authorities, particularly regarding vulnerable children who have lost parental care. The ruling establishes important precedents about how councils must approach their statutory duties, ensuring financial considerations cannot override the welfare needs of children in their care.
