Ealing Council failed to provide a vulnerable homeless man with sufficient housing support, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has found.
The man, referred to as Mr X in the report, had been living in an overcrowded one-bedroom flat with his partner, a young child with medical conditions and behavioural issues, and another family member. Mr X also suffered from medical conditions which affected his mobility.
In September 2022, Mr X applied to the council’s housing register. Over the next year and a half, the council engaged with Mr X over his housing options, including the council asking if he would consider the private rented sector.
In May 2024, Mr X’s representative contacted the council to report that Mr X was facing eviction after being served a Section 21 – no fault eviction – notice. His representative stressed that the current property was unsuitable due to his medical conditions, and requested emergency accommodation.
In turn, the council opened a homelessness application and requested further medical information. By late June, the council concluded that Mr X was “threatened with homelessness” but not yet homeless.
The errors on the council’s part begun in July 2024. The council initially stated that it had concluded its assessment and found it did not owe Mr X a duty of care.
It then sent another decision stating that Mr X was not in priority need. This happened at the same time Mr X received a Personalised Housing Plan (PHP) outlining steps Mr X should take.
The Ombudsman pointed out that the conclusion that Mr X was not owed duty whilst issuing a PHP was contradictory.
Later in July, an occupational therapist assessment was submitted to the council, explicitly stating Mr X needed a ground-floor property due to a condition affecting his walking.
After the representative complained about “the council’s handling of the homelessness application”, the council admitted fault in October 2024. It stated that the council “had missed this information and should have assessed you under the relief duty” and conceded it “was not reasonable to say you were not in priority need”.
In December 2024, a medical officer formally advised that “Mr X’s property was not suitable for his medical needs”. On December 27, 2024, Ealing Council wrote to Mr X “to accept it owed him the relief duty”.
Despite this, the council still did not offer accommodation. It was not until mid-March 2025 the council accepted it owed Mr X the main housing duty and subsequently offered him a suitable alternative property – he moved in in late March 2025, 18 months after he applied to join the housing register.
While the council correctly applied a prevention duty initially, there was “no evidence the council wrote to Mr X in a 56-day period from July 2024” to progress his case. The Ombudsman concluded that the council “was at fault for not completing the relief duty in a timely manner”.
The Ombudsman also highlighted the importance of the July 2024 occupational therapy report. Upon receiving it, “the council should have considered whether the property remained suitable for him to continue to occupy”.
Based on this medical evidence, “the council would have reason to believe Mr X may have a priority need for assistance”. Therefore, the council “should have provided him with interim accommodation,” and the “failure to offer him interim accommodation at this point was a fault”, the Ombudsman said.
The Ombudsman found that the delay in accepting the relief duty and in making a main duty decision meant Mr X was in unsuitable accommodation for around six months longer than he should have been. The report notes that this caused Mr X “distress and frustration”.
Ealing Council agreed to issue Mr X an apology and pay him £1,400. Within two months of publication, the council agreed to “provide guidance to relevant officers” to ensure they properly “identify whether to end the prevention duty after 56 days,” correctly “notify applicants of their decision,” and “ensure interim accommodation duties are met upon receipt of additional information which may affect an applicant’s homelessness status and priority need”.
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.
“We take the Ombudsman’s finds 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.
“We are continuing to improve our homelessness services to ensure residents receive timely decisions, clear communication and appropriate support at what is often a very difficult time in their lives.”
