The Ombudsman concluded the property was unsuitable and “should never have been offered”
A North London family has been awarded more than £3,000 after the council failed to provide them with temporary accommodation until the day they were being evicted by their private landlord.
This was despite the local authority – Brent Council – being aware of the bailiffs’ warrant long before. The mum also complained the property was overcrowded, as well as mouldy and infested with insects.
An investigation by the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) found that Brent Council was at fault for telling the mum – referred to in the LGO report as Ms X – that she had to stay in the property until the eviction was enforced, but they didn’t secure temporary accommodation for the family beforehand. The Ombudsman also found the property provided was unsuitable and should never have been offered.
The council has been ordered to pay Ms X £2,800 for the eight months her family was left in “unsuitable” temporary accommodation, as well as an additional £300 for the “distress and uncertainty” caused by the circumstances surrounding her eviction.
Ms X lived in private rented accommodation with her two children who are neurodivergent. She approached the council for homelessness assistance as her landlord wanted to evict her from the property, with the local authority agreeing it owed Ms X a main housing duty, but she continued to live in the private accommodation in the meantime.
In February 2025, Ms X’s landlord obtained a bailiffs’ warrant of eviction from the courts, which gave her until mid-March to leave the property. She brought the warrant to Brent Council, which advised her that she had to wait until her eviction date and it would look for accommodation “based on availability at the time”, according to the LGO report.
Ms X then contacted the council and explained “how anxious she was” about having to wait for the bailiffs to evict her and asked the local authority to offer accommodation sooner. However, she wasn’t provided with the one-bedroom property until mid-March.
Ms X then complained that the accommodation was “in a poor state of repair”, describing the property as “very dirty” with mould, broken sockets on the wall and an insect infestation. She also said that the council told her it would provide two single beds for her children but it “had not done so”, the report states.
In response, Brent Council said this was the only property available as she had been evicted, but it would prioritise her for a move as soon as more suitable accommodation could be sourced. The local authority also said that it had passed on her concerns about the condition of the property to the emergency team leader.
Ms X escalated the complaint, arguing that there was “not an acceptable reason” for why it had taken so long to look into her complaints about the condition of the property and explained that her children had been staying elsewhere as they “could not live [there]”, according to the LGO report.
The council said it was working to resolve the repair issues and offered Ms X £300 to recognise the distress it had caused. It also completed its review of the accommodation in August 2025 and wrote to Ms X to tell her that they had found it “unsuitable”. However, it didn’t list reasons why it concluded this but the case notes showed the local authority determined that the family was “statutorily overcrowded” in the property, according to the LGO.
The Ombudsman investigation found that the council was aware “long before Ms X was evicted” that her landlord intended to remove her from the property and it should have “taken timely steps” to secure accommodation before the eviction.
The report states: “Instead, it only arranged accommodation for the day of eviction. This was contrary to the approach set out in statutory guidance. […] It left Ms X and her family facing an avoidable crisis at the point of being evicted. This caused distress and uncertainty about whether they would have accommodation, and where they would be placed, until the last moment.”
Regarding the condition of the temporary accommodation, the report adds: “The notes showing the council’s decision making showed the council believed this property was statutorily overcrowded for Ms X and her family. As a result I can say on balance that this property was never suitable for Ms X and her family and she should not have been offered this. Had the council not waited until Ms X was being evicted to find her accommodation, it may have been able to source something suitable.”
A spokesperson for Brent Council said: “We accept the Ombudsman’s findings and apologise to the resident and her family for the failings identified in this case. We have already taken steps to address the Ombudsman’s recommendations and continue to review our processes to help improve our services for residents facing homelessness.”
Stay in the loop with the latest North London news. Sign up to our MyNorthLondon newsletter HERE for daily updates and more.
