Brent Council Failed Family Until Eviction Day, Placed Them in High Wycombe Hotel
A North London council has been found to have failed a family facing eviction by providing accommodation only at the last possible moment, according to a damning report from the Local Government Ombudsman. The family was left dealing with what the Ombudsman described as an "avoidable crisis" and the profound uncertainty of not knowing where they would live.
Delayed Response and Last-Minute Accommodation
The mother, referred to in the Ombudsman report as Mrs X, complained that Brent Council had delayed progressing her homeless application. Her family was only notified of their new accommodation on the very day of their eviction. This left them scrambling to manage an already stressful situation without adequate preparation or support.
Mrs X also raised concerns that the out-of-borough accommodation provided was too far from her children's school and her partner's workplace. The temporary accommodation was located at the Buckingham Hotel in High Wycombe, creating additional logistical challenges for the family during an already difficult transition period.
Council's Legal Obligations and Failures
The timeline of events reveals significant shortcomings in the council's response. In May 2023, Mrs X initially contacted the council to make a homelessness application after being informed she would have to leave her private rented home. She received a further Section 21 notice, commonly known as a 'no fault' eviction, in November of that same year.
According to the LGO report, the council made some attempts to prevent homelessness in early 2024, including dialogue with landlords and monitoring eviction proceedings. However, it only accepted relief duty in June 2024, meaning it had a legal obligation to secure accommodation for at least six months after concluding that eviction was "likely unavoidable."
A personalized housing plan was issued in August 2024, before the council accepted the main housing duty for the family later that same month. Mrs X informed the local authority about her December 4, 2024 eviction date, after which the council advised her that accommodation would be arranged on that specific date and assistance would be provided on the day of eviction.
Ombudsman's Findings and Council's Response
The Ombudsman concluded that Brent Council "should have taken timely steps to secure accommodation before the eviction date," as clearly set out in statutory guidelines. Since the council had accepted housing duty back in August, there was ample time to arrange suitable temporary accommodation well in advance of the December eviction date.
Brent Council has accepted these findings and acknowledged that it should have formally offered temporary accommodation before the eviction date to ensure Mrs X could review its suitability beforehand. The council also recognized there was an "unacceptable lack of overall progress" from when it was first notified of the eviction in June 2023.
The case remained in prevention duty beyond the usual 56-day period, with no records showing this extension was agreed with Mrs X or that sufficient progress had been made. The Ombudsman determined there was "avoidable delay and drift" in progressing the case, leaving Mrs X with prolonged uncertainty about what action the council was taking to prevent homelessness and what practical support would be provided.
Compensation and Lessons Learned
While the Ombudsman did not assess the specific suitability of the High Wycombe hotel accommodation, it concluded that delaying placement until the day of eviction "contributed to uncertainty and distress" about where the family would be placed. This delay also "limited Mrs X's ability to promptly challenge suitability through the review process."
Brent Council has apologized for its "shortcomings" in the case and offered the family £1,150 as compensation to "acknowledge the impact" this had. A council spokesperson stated: "We sincerely apologise to Mrs X and her family for the shortcomings identified in the handling of her homelessness application. We recognise that there were unacceptable delays and a lack of progress in advancing her case, and that temporary accommodation was not secured until the day of eviction, despite the main housing duty having been accepted."
The spokesperson added: "We understand that these failings caused significant distress and uncertainty at an already difficult time, for which we apologise. This is not the standard of service we aim to provide. We have offered a financial remedy to acknowledge the impact on Mrs X and her family, and we will be writing to her again to clearly explain how she can request a review of the suitability of her accommodation. We are taking steps to learn from this case and improve our processes to ensure this does not happen again."
The case highlights ongoing challenges in local government responses to homelessness and the critical importance of timely intervention when families face eviction. The financial compensation, while acknowledging the distress caused, cannot fully address the disruption experienced by the family during this period of uncertainty and last-minute relocation.
