London borough left family of five adults in single room for eight months, Ombudsman finds
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has found Westminster City Council at fault regarding the treatment of a resident and her family after the group were left in unsuitable accommodation, in the form of a single, overcrowded room, for eight months.
The resident, Ms B, complained the council failed to properly consider suitability for five months, and then did not provide suitable accommodation for a further three months.
This meant the family of five adults were left in a single overcrowded room which affected their health.
The family approached the council as homeless in January 2024 and were placed in interim accommodation with a small kitchenette and shower, but no space for movement or storage and no privacy.
Ms B complained in April, highlighting the overcrowding and lack of separation between male and female family members, as well as medical issues worsened by the conditions.
She noted another family had been given multiple rooms.
Westminster acknowledged her concerns but cited a severe shortage of accommodation, stating a suitability review could only be requested if the main housing duty was accepted.
On 26 April, the council accepted the main housing duty but maintained the room was suitable, prompting the family to request a review.
According to the Ombudsman's report, the council failed to act promptly—by August, Ms B had to chase for updates, only to learn the review had not been registered.
The council finally ruled the accommodation unsuitable on 29 August and placed the family on a waiting list for alternative housing.
The Ombudsman’s report revealed that Westminster repeatedly dismissed further concerns as routine enquiries, admitting the accommodation was unsuitable but claiming limited availability.
In December 2024 the family was finally offered suitable five-bedroom temporary accommodation, which they accepted.
The Ombudsman said that the council’s delays, poor communication, and failure to address severe overcrowding - despite acknowledging unsuitability - had caused significant distress to the family.
It found:
- There was no apparent evidence of the council considering suitability before the accommodation was offered to the family in March 2024, meaning that the accommodation was unsuitable from the start. This was fault.
- Ms B also asked the council for an extra bedroom in the hotel, but there was no evidence the council considered this. This is fault.
- The council stated in April that the accommodation it had offered was “the most suitable interim accommodation available” but this does not mean the accommodation was suitable for the family and there was no explanation of how it was considered suitable. This was fault.
- The council frequently told the family that they could request a review if the council accepted the main duty, but failed to fulfil its duty to consider the suitability of the interim accommodation. This was fault.
- The council failed to complete a review of statutory suitability until the end of August, five months after it was requested. This was fault.
The Ombudsman recommended that Westmister:
- apologise to the family for its failure to properly consider the suitability of the accommodation it provided from March 2024 to August 2024, and also apologise for its failure to provide suitable accommodation for a further three months.
- pay the family £2,400 for the eight months that they lived in unsuitable accommodation.
- remind officers to consider suitability of accommodation from the start including interim accommodation and set out the reasons it considers accommodation is suitable.
A Westminster City Council spokesperson said: “We are sorry for the delay in finding suitable accommodation for Ms B and for the distress and inconvenience this caused. We have accepted the decision by the Ombudsman and their recommendations have been completed.”
Harry Rodd
