Islington Council must pay the woman £2,700 in compensation after making her wait 10 months for help
Islington Council must pay £2,700 to a homeless woman it left stranded for several months while she was awaiting surgery for her chronic health condition.
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) slammed the North London council for its failure to help a medically vulnerable woman, known as Miss X, who waited over a year for suitable housing because the council took over 10 months to decide whether it had a duty to help her.
Miss X said the delays prevented her from having surgery and taking medical treatment for her chronic illness. The watchdog found that by prolonging her case Islington Council caused the woman “injustice in the form of uncertainty, time and trouble”.
The resident went to the council for help in July 2024 because she was homeless and sofa-surfing while grappling with her medical issues, which had compromised her immune system. In September, the local authority confirmed it owed her a ‘relief duty’ under the law and would help her find somewhere to live in the private rented sector, and asked for additional medical information from her GP.
Anyone who is legally homeless and eligible for assistance, regardless of priority need, gets council relief duty for 56 days. During this period councils may offer temporary accommodation, but there is no guarantee.
Once this period ends, a local authority’s long-term ‘main housing duty’ kicks in, which means it has to offer long-term support to people deemed as ‘priority need’, such as those with serious health problems, to find somewhere secure to live and place them in temporary accommodation in the meantime.
Early on, Miss X informed the council she was in receipt of Personal Independence Payments (PIP) for her health condition, and that a medical professional had recommended she undergo surgery which would affect her for at least three months afterwards.
PIP is only awarded to people who: have a long-term physical or mental health condition; have a disability; struggle with certain everyday tasks or getting around; and expect the difficulties to last for at least 12 months.
After 82 days had passed, in December 2024 the council wrote to Miss X to say its relief duty had ended, but did not mention priority need or confirm whether or not it would support her into housing.
From then on, she repeatedly contacted the council but faced delays in getting a response, and found the replies she did receive were inadequate. She formally complained on January 13, 2025, but it took the council 66 working days to respond, more than four times its 15-day target. After she escalated the complaint to Stage 2, the local authority later missed its target again, this time taking 39 days to reply.
In March, she reminded the council she was still receiving PIP and explained that her remaining homeless meant she was forced to stop treatments for her illness and it had prevented her from having surgery.
In April, the council upheld her complaint and promised it would issue a decision on her homelessness case by May 13. But it was not until June 11 that the council confirmed it owed Miss X main housing duty, and in July she was placed in temporary housing.
Despite the council’s explanation that the delay was caused by its waiting on specialist medical information, the watchdog judged that the council already had enough details about her vulnerability in October 2024 to reach the decision it made in June.
The Ombudsman also criticised the council’s poor record-keeping and communications, since it ignored multiple requests for support from Miss X, including during her complaint process, and “significantly” missed target timescales to reply. The council said the communication breakdown happened after a caseworker left, resulting in incomplete records.
The watchdog ordered the council to apologise to the woman for the injustice, and to make a symbolic payment of £2,700 – equivalent to £300 for every month she was deprived of suitable accommodation – instead of the council’s earlier offer of financial remedy.
However, the Ombudsman did not recommend any service improvements because the council had already agreed to this.
An Islington Council spokesperson said: “We accept the findings of the Ombudsman report and sincerely apologise for the failings identified in this case and for the distress this caused to the individual involved.
“We recognise the impact this had and have agreed to fully implement the Ombudsman’s recommendations. We have already taken steps to address the issues identified, including introducing new procedures to improve timeliness, strengthening oversight of communication standards, and ensuring earlier and more robust assessments of priority need.
“We have also increased capacity within the service following targeted recruitment to better manage demand and improve resilience.”
Got a story? Email josef.steen@reachplc or @jslondonldr on X.
Stay in the loop with the latest North London news. Sign up to our MyNorthLondon newsletter HERE for daily updates and more.
