Litany of Faults in Ealing Council's Handling of Housing Case
Watchdog concludes vulnerable man was left in unsuitable accommodation
Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, Ms Amerdeep Somal. Picture: Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman)
August 20, 2025
Ealing Council left a vulnerable man in unsuitable housing for six months, the local government ombudsman has found. The watchdog found six faults which delayed correct action being taken to support him.
In September 2023, the man (referred to as Mr X in the report) applied to join the Ealing Council housing register. He reported that he was living above a noisy licensed premises, suffered anti-social behaviour, and lived with a number of difficult health conditions such as essential tremors.
Mr X also told the council that his neighbours took drugs. In response, the council did not assign medical priority and informed Mr X he should address his concerns through appropriate channels.
A council officer met with Mr X to discuss his application, and suggested sheltered accommodation, which Mr X accepted, and he would be automatically bidding for sheltered properties each week. In April 2024, the council successfully placed a bid.
Mr X’s representative later contacted the council requesting he opted out of auto-bidding, and asked that it withdraw the offered accommodation due to insufficient space. Shortly after, Mr X’s landlord was seeking to evict him from his property, which was considered unsuitable due to his health conditions.
Subsequently, the council scheduled a housing assessment for Mr X, who had a carer for his health conditions, and advised him to continue bidding and explore private renting. In May, Mr X’s representative submitted the section 21 (no fault eviction) notice alongside medical documents and a request for emergency accommodation.
Ealing Council did not consider the section 21 notice as valid, and requested further documents. Aside from this, Mr X’s representative reasserted that the current property was not suitable and complained about the lack of support from the council.
In mid-June 2024, the council referenced case law to outline why it did not consider it unreasonable for Mr X to remain in his unsuitable home in the short term. A few weeks later, the council carried out an assessment and set out that it owed him a prevention of homelessness duty.
Then, in mid-July, Mr X submitted an occupational therapy report, however there were delays in the response to this. Only in December 2024 did the council refer this report to its medical officer, who confirmed his current home was unsuitable.
Weeks later, the council offered a relief duty letter to Mr X, outlining he may be in priority need and that the council had a duty to offer interim accommodation, which it did not. Only in March 2025, 17 months after his initial application, did the council accept its housing duty and offered him suitable accommodation.
Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, Ms Amerdeep Somal, found six faults in the council’s handling of the case. The first was the delay in ending the ‘prevention duty.’
Councils owe a prevention duty to someone at risk of becoming homeless which lasts 56 days, with the law stating that the council must issue a formal decision at the end of that period. Ealing Council did not do this, and denied Mr X his right to challenge the council’s response.
Furthermore, the council implied that it had ended its duty to Mr X. However, legally, this must be done through a formal letter, allowing the chance to appeal the decision – the council did not do this, which is a fault.
When new medical evidence is submitted, council’s must reassess an individual’s housing need. Mr X’s occupational therapy report was strong evidence his current living situation was not suitable, however the council did not acknowledge this for months – which was a fault.
Additionally, despite accepting Mr X may be at risk of homelessness and vulnerable, the council did not offer immediate emergency accommodation. This meant Mr X was left inside his unsafe home – fault four.
When Ealing Council accepted it owed Mr X ‘relief duty’ in December 2024, it failed to offer him suitable accommodation within an acceptable time frame, instead waiting until March 2025. This delay was another fault.
Finally, the delay in accepting relief duty and in making a decision meant Mr X remained in unsuitable accommodation for a further six months longer than he should have been. The ombudsman said this fault “caused Mr X distress and frustration.”
As a result, the council has paid Mr X £1,100 in financial compensation. The ombudsman has also advised that officers are trained properly and must refer to new medical evidence promptly.
An Ealing Council spokesperson said: “We are sorry that in this case, we fell short of the high standards we set ourselves, and we have apologised to the resident. Delays and poor communication meant the resident remained in unsuitable accommodation longer than they should have, which caused significant distress.
“We are committed to listening to our residents and working with the Ombudsman. The operations of the homelessness and temporary accommodation service are being reviewed, and we will be implementing best practices going forward.”
Philip James Lynch - Local Democracy Reporter