Lewisham Council was found to have waited 13 months longer than appropriate to offer the family interim accommodation, according to an investigation.
A mother from south London has been awarded over £9,400 after her seriously ill child was left to live in damp, mould-infested accommodation located far from their hospital, due to Lewisham Council placing the family in unsuitable housing outside their borough.
Her youngest child, who was diagnosed with a life-threatening condition, required two years of hospital treatment in Lewisham.
An investigation by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman found that Lewisham Council delayed providing interim housing by 13 months after the family was issued a Section 21 eviction notice by their private landlord. The council was also criticised for its poor handling of the family’s complaints.
Lewisham Council told the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) it recognised that its actions “fell short” of the standards expected and confirmed it had apologised to the family.
As part of a settlement, the council agreed to pay £9,440.24, covering rent arrears and legal costs. The compensation also includes £750 for the mother’s avoidable distress and uncertainty, and £1,000 for her child.
The Ombudsman noted that the family was left in unsuitable private accommodation until just one week before eviction by bailiffs. Because of the council’s policy to wait until bailiffs arrived with a warrant before acting, the family incurred £46.03 per day in court costs, and had little time to secure appropriate housing.
The council had warned that if the family moved out before the eviction, they would be classed as “intentionally homeless” and lose their entitlement to housing assistance.
A mother in south London has received more than £9,400 in compensation after her seriously ill child was placed in temporary housing with damp and mould, far from their regular hospital. The decision, made by Lewisham Council, left the family in unsuitable accommodation and disrupted essential medical care.
The family’s youngest child, referred to as B, was diagnosed with a life-threatening illness in August 2023, requiring more than two years of ongoing treatment at a hospital in Lewisham. Weekly home visits by nurses were essential during this time to carry out blood tests and monitor the child’s condition.
However, a detailed investigation by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman found that Lewisham Council delayed its intervention by 13 months after the family was served a Section 21 eviction notice. The Ombudsman concluded that the council failed to take timely action, forcing the family to live under the threat of eviction and in a property unsuitable for a seriously ill child.
When the council eventually stepped in—just a week before the bailiffs were scheduled to evict the family—it placed them in out-of-borough accommodation with documented damp and mould issues. The new location meant B’s nurses could no longer visit, forcing the child to travel long distances to hospital appointments and putting them at greater risk.
Ombudsman Amerdeep Somal criticised the council’s inaction, saying:
“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.”
She added that the council “failed to grasp the seriousness” of the case from the outset and worsened the situation by not securing safe and suitable temporary housing or addressing the family’s complaints adequately.
The mother, identified only as Ms X, had been living in private rented accommodation with her two children when she received the eviction notice in June 2023. Despite contacting the council shortly after, no suitable accommodation was offered until October, after bailiffs became involved. During that period, the landlord increased the rent by £200 per month, and later filed a possession claim with the court, resulting in daily court charges of £46.03, additional legal fees, and rent arrears of nearly £3,000.
Ms X kept the council informed throughout, including updates on her child’s condition and the mounting financial pressure. A clinical nurse from the hospital also wrote to the council, emphasising the need for a clean, safe, and mould-free environment for B’s recovery.
Despite this, the council maintained that leaving the property before a bailiff warrant would make the family “intentionally homeless,” disqualifying them from further housing support. Advocates acting on Ms X’s behalf, including a man referred to as Mr Y, challenged this position and raised formal complaints when the council declined to offer accommodation earlier.
Eventually, in late October, just days before the scheduled eviction, the council offered interim housing—but it was outside the borough and unsuitable for B’s medical needs. Photos of the property showed visible mould, and the relocation cut off access to home nursing support. The council responded by saying it had asked the housing provider to address the damp and that no other properties were available on the day.
A week later, in early November 2024, the council offered the family a new home within Lewisham, where they moved shortly after. In December, the council formally accepted the main housing duty.
As part of the Ombudsman’s ruling, the council has agreed to pay £9,440.24 to the family, covering rent arrears, court costs, and compensation—including £750 for Ms X’s distress and £1,000 for B’s suffering.
In response to the findings, a Lewisham Council spokesperson said:
“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 concluded:
“This awful situation could have been avoided… 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.”
The Standard, September 2025
