Ealing Council has been ordered to pay £1,400 compensation to a disabled man who was left in unsuitable accommodation for six months due to the council's mishandling of his homelessness application. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman found the council at fault for failing to provide interim housing and for delays in processing his case.
Background of the case
The man, referred to as Mr X in the Ombudsman's report, lived in a cramped one-bedroom flat with his partner, a young child with medical conditions and behavioural issues, and another family member. Mr X himself suffered from medical conditions affecting his mobility. He applied to Ealing Council's housing register in September 2022.
Over the next 18 months, the council discussed housing options with Mr X, including the possibility of private renting. In May 2024, Mr X's representative informed the council that he was facing eviction after receiving a Section 21 no-fault eviction notice. The representative stressed the property was unsuitable due to Mr X's medical conditions and requested emergency accommodation.
Council's errors and contradictions
In July 2024, the council initially concluded it did not owe Mr X a duty of care. It then sent a second decision stating he was not in priority need, while simultaneously issuing a Personalised Housing Plan (PHP) outlining steps he should take. The Ombudsman noted this was contradictory: concluding no duty was owed while issuing a PHP.
Later that month, an occupational therapist assessment submitted to the council explicitly stated Mr X needed a ground-floor property due to his walking condition. After the representative complained about the council's handling, the council admitted fault in October 2024, acknowledging it had missed the medical information and should have assessed Mr X under the relief duty.
Further delays and Ombudsman findings
In December 2024, a medical officer confirmed the property was unsuitable for Mr X's needs. On December 27, the council accepted it owed the relief duty but still did not offer accommodation. It was not until mid-March 2025 that the council accepted the main housing duty and offered a suitable property, which Mr X moved into in late March 2025—18 months after his initial application.
The Ombudsman found the council failed to progress his case within 56 days from July 2024 and did not consider interim accommodation upon receiving the occupational therapy report. The delay meant Mr X remained in unsuitable accommodation for about six months longer than necessary, causing distress and frustration.
Council's response and improvements
Ealing Council agreed to apologize to Mr X and pay £1,400 compensation. Within two months, the council committed to providing guidance to officers on properly identifying when to end prevention duty, notifying applicants of decisions, and ensuring interim accommodation duties are met upon receiving new information.
An Ealing Council spokesperson said: "We accept the Ombudsman's findings in this case and have agreed to apologise to the resident for the delays and confusion we caused. We will make a payment in recognition of the impact this had on the individual, including the time spent in unsuitable accommodation and the issues with communication around appeal rights."
The spokesperson added: "We take the Ombudsman's findings seriously and are already carrying out a number of improvements to our service. These include strengthening guidance to staff to ensure clear and timely decisions are made, applicants are properly notified about decisions on their homelessness status, including their right to challenge those decisions, and referrals to medical officers are made promptly when new information is received."
