A family of four were left living in a "one room studio flat" with damp and mould issues for 18 months despite complaints to their council about the conditions.

Complaints from the father failed to force action, and Ealing Council did not relocate the family until March 2026, having initially received complaints about the placement in September 2024. The father, referred to as Mr X in the report, says his family became homeless when evicted by their private landlord of 10 years.

In September 2024, the family were placed in the room whilst their application for support was processed. Mr X said that it was "unreasonable to expect his four-person family to live, sleep and eat in one room".

It took another four months for the council to confirm that it owed homelessness duty to the family. At the same time, Ealing Council determined that the room was suitable for the meantime.

In May 2025, Mr X complained to the council specifically about the conditions, and in response the council advised him that he could request a review which would assess the suitability of the placement. The council also argued that the studio was "not severely affected by mould or damp".

Mr X utilised this right to review the placement in July 2025. It took almost six more months for the council to decide, in January 2026, they concluded that the studio flat was not suitable for the family. Three months later, the family were provided "more appropriate temporary accommodation".

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) ruled that there was a delay in Ealing Council's response to Mr X's homelessness application. Instead of the eight weeks it is supposed to take, it took the council 26 weeks.

This meant Mr X was denied his right to request a review of the studio's suitability for six months. The watchdog determined that this was an injustice caused on the family.

advertisement

On the suitability of the studio flat, the Ombudsman said: "Four people living in one room was clearly not ideal, but in the context of the chronic housing shortage in London, I do not consider it was unreasonable that Mr X and his family were offered this on a short-term basis."

However, once the council accepted homelessness duty, and the studio became temporary – rather than interim accommodation – the council should have completed its suitability review of the room within eight weeks. It took 20 – this was a fault.

The local government watchdog determined that the faults identified were a result of an "increased demand on the homelessness service, as opposed to systemic fault". The council has agreed to apologise to Mr X, and pay him £1,450 in compensation.