North West London family of 6 forced to live in 2-bed accommodation earns £3,600

A north London council has been ordered to pay a family £3,600 after they were left to live in “severely overcrowded” accommodation for 18 months longer than they should have. The family of six lived in a two-bed property despite the local authority accepting it was “unsuitable”.

An investigation by the Local Ombudsman (LGO) found that Brent Council was at fault for failing to offer the family more suitable accommodation despite knowing their living conditions. The local authority had a housing obligation to the family at the time, but the Ombudsman concluded they were there “18 months longer than necessary”.

Referred to in the Ombudsman’s report as “Mrs X”, the mother first complained to the council in November 2021 about the family’s living conditions, which were causing them “distress and uncertainty”. The local authority accepted the homelessness service for the family in August 2022, however it failed to find them suitable accommodation until January 2024 – after she made a formal complaint.

READ MORE: A family of 13 crammed into a moldy 3-bed house pleads for a new home because the pregnant mother is sick

The ombudsman ordered the council to apologize to Mrs X and pay her £3,600 “to acknowledge the distress of living in unsuitable overcrowded accommodation” between August 2022 and January 2024, when she owed her main housing debt.

According to the report, records showed Ms X contacted the board several times between mid-2022 and mid-2023 for updates on the situation. On many occasions, she received no response to her calls or emails, and the Ombudsman noted that there was “no evidence of any offer of temporary or permanent accommodation” being made to the family.

A housing officer had discussed placing Mrs X in emergency accommodation due to the unsuitable nature of the property she was living in, but advised that she could be shared. Not wanting to disturb the children, Mrs X opted to keep the family there, but the Ombudsman found “no evidence” that the officer had explained that this would only be if no other accommodation was available and for a maximum of six weeks.

The report states: “The evidence shows that the Council discussed ’emergency’ accommodation with Mrs X, but as it did not fully explain the implications and temporary nature of the shared/boarding accommodation, she was unable to make an informed decision about moving. (…) It leaves uncertainty as to whether Mrs X would have decided to accept a provisional offer if she had been fully informed.”

It added: “In August 2022 the council accepted the principal duty and Mrs X remained living in the same substandard property. The council said this was due to a lack of available properties in the London area. However, there is no evidence to show that the council (…) sought and offered alternative properties for Mrs X until (…) January 2024. There is no evidence of communication with Mrs X and it appears that he left the matter adrift. without taking action until she filed her complaint.”

Cabinet member for housing, homelessness and tenant safety, Cllr Promise Knight, said: “We have apologized to Mrs X for the way her case was handled. She should have been given suitable accommodation after we accepted our housing debt to her. Ms X will receive compensation of £3,600 for her distress.

Don’t miss the biggest stories from around town: Sign up to MyLondon’s The 12 HERE for the biggest 12 stories every day