A south London mother has been awarded more than £9,400 after her seriously ill child was forced to live in damp and mouldy housing far from their hospital because the council placed them in unsuitable accommodation outside the borough.
The woman’s youngest child was diagnosed with a life-threatening illness and faced two years of hospital treatment in Lewisham.
An investigation by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman found Lewisham Council took 13 months “too long” to provide the family with interim accommodation after they were served a Section 21 eviction notice by their private landlord. The council’s handling of the family’s complaint has also been criticised.
Lewisham Council told the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) it acknowledged it “fell short” of the service expected of it and had apologised to the family.
The council has agreed to pay the family £9,440.24 towards avoidable rent arrears and legal costs.
This includes £750 in compensation for the woman’s avoidable distress and uncertainty, and her child will also receive £1,000.
The Ombudsman said the council left the family to live in private accommodation until a week before bailiffs evicted them, meaning it had little time to find the family suitable accommodation. The family faced court bills of £46.03 a day, because the council’s policy stated it would not act until the bailiffs turned up with a warrant.
The council said it would deem the family “intentionally homeless” if they moved out before this time and would have no right to help.
The Ombudsman said when the council did act, the only accommodation it could find was out of borough, with damp and mould issues. This meant the child’s nurses could no longer make their weekly visits and instead the child had to travel to hospital, which put them at risk of further harm.
Amerdeep Somal, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, said: “This kind of brinkmanship has placed a severely ill child at grave risk and compounded an already distressing situation by forcing the family to live with the threat of being physically removed from their home hanging over them.
“The council has failed to grasp the seriousness of this case from start to finish and the family’s situation was only made worse by the council’s failure to provide suitable temporary accommodation or to properly respond to their complaints.”
The woman, referred to as Ms X, lived in a privately rented property with her two children. In mid-June 2023, the family was issued with a Section 21 eviction notice and Ms X approached the council for help in late June. Ms X’s landlord was contacted by the council. The landlord told the council it was selling the property and would go to court to seek possession if Ms X did not leave when the notice period expired in August.
Ms X told the council her landlord was increasing the rent from September by £200 a month, and that she could not afford this. In early August and with just over a week until the Section 21 notice expired, Ms X’s youngest child, referred to as B, was diagnosed with a serious and life-threatening illness. She told the council about this the following day.
The council’s records show it explained the possession and eviction process, and sent Ms X information to help her look for alternative privately rented accommodation. However, Ms X was also told not to leave the property until she had a warrant from the bailiffs. In early October, the hospital wrote to the council about B’s health, and that they would need treatment at hospital for over two years. Throughout the treatment, B would be immunocompromised and at greater risk of catching infections.
The clinical nurse specialist told the council that B would need to be in accommodation that was free of damp and mould, was safe, quiet, and was a clean environment to reduce any preventable risks. The council noted Ms X had priority for accommodation within the borough because of B’s treatment.
In April, Ms X’s landlord registered a claim of possession with the court and in late June, the court granted the landlord possession. The court made a charging order of £46.03 a day from July 20 until Ms X moved out of the property as well as the landlord’s court costs of £422.50 and rent arrears of £2,986.95.
Ms X had told the council about the possession order, and that she could not afford the charge of £46.03 a day, however in its response, the council said Ms X would be making herself “intentionally homeless” if she left the property without receiving a bailiff’s warrant first. In late July, Mr Y complained to the council on behalf of Ms X, stating the council was wrong to tell her to wait for a bailiff warrant and that it was unreasonable for her to remain in the property and the council should accept the relief duty and provide interim accommodation.
Mr Y also said Ms X could not afford the charging order or increased rent. The council did not uphold the complaint and said it had accepted a homeless application and was working with Ms X to prevent her from becoming homeless.
Mr Y asked the council to consider the complaint at stage two, as the stage one response failed to address any of the original complaint. The council accepted the relief duty at the beginning of October and a few days later, Ms X received a notice from the bailiffs informing her she would be evicted on October 28.
A week before on October 21, the council offered Ms X interim accommodation – but this was outside of the borough. Mr Y told the council the new property was too far from the hospital where B was receiving treatment, and up until the move, nurses visited B at home once a week to do essential blood tests.
The family was now too far away from the nurses to visit and instead Ms X had to take B to hospital, which put B at risk as it was a long journey to get there. Mr Y provided pictures of the damp and mould in the new property and reminded the council the family needed to be in a clean property that was free of damp and mould.
In its response, the council said the property was the only one available on the day, and had asked the property provider to address the damp and mould. In its response to Mr Y’s stage two complaint, the council said in November 2024 that it was sorry for the delay in both of its responses, but it did not accept it had to offer interim accommodation as soon as Ms X received the possession order.
The same day, the council offered Ms X alternative accommodation that was within Lewisham, and she and her family moved in a few days later. The council accepted the main housing duty in early December 2024.
A Lewisham Council spokesperson told the LDRS in response to the Ombudsman’s findings: “We have accepted all the recommendations made by the Ombudsman and will take forward the actions detailed. We have also revised the policy which compounded the unacceptable delays in this case.”
The Ombudsman, Ms Somal, said: “This awful situation could have been avoided, and more suitable accommodation found sooner, had Lewisham not left it so late to act.
“The council has agreed to end its flawed policy of leaving people facing homelessness in their property until the court grants a bailiff warrant. It will now assess and rectify the situation for others at risk of homelessness in the borough who are awaiting assistance. I hope this will now improve the outlook for people facing homelessness in Lewisham.”
