Hounslow Council in London has been ordered by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) to pay £1,000 compensation to X and Y, who were left homeless for over a year due to repeated administrative errors. The council lost track of their file despite knowing one of them was about to undergo medical procedures that could put them at risk of infection. After months without proper communication from the council, the pair remained sofa-surfing until June 2025 when interim accommodation was finally offered but deemed unsuitable by October 2025. The Ombudsman found Hounslow Council responsible for failing to provide necessary support and housing duty during this period.
Written by the local model on 2026-09-14,
using this article's own text rather than the other coverage of the
same event (that is the story summary below).
Story summary
In February 2023, a couple identified as X and Y contacted Hounslow Council in west London regarding their living conditions. Despite one of them having an upcoming medical procedure that could put them at risk of infection, the council failed to provide legally required accommodation due to repeated file misplacement and communication breakdowns. The couple reported being officially homeless and staying with friends for a maximum of six nights per week since May 2023. In January 2024, an officer promised to contact them but did not follow through. Later that year, the council claimed to have attempted communications between January and April 2024 without providing evidence to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). After a thorough investigation, the LGSCO found the council at fault for leaving X and Y homeless for over a year and ordered it to pay compensation.
Written for “London Council Compensation Case” on 2026-09-14,
grounded in this article and the 0 other(s) covering the same event.
Why this leaning score
The article's own words the score was based on. Each is quoted
verbatim and was checked against the article text before being
stored, so you can find it in the original.
Leaning score -0.45 for article 9302 (high confidence, 2 verified quotes) · logged 2026-09-14
Hounslow Council has apologised for the mistake which left two people, referred to as X and Y in the report, homeless for over a year.
asserted
which → apologise → year
Despite one of the pair, named only as X, having an upcoming medical procedure at the time of the application which could put them at risk of infection, the council repeatedly lost track of their file and failed to provide legally required accommodation.
uncertain
council → name → accommodation
The pair initially contacted the local authority in February 2023 relating to their living conditions, and again in May, when they told the west London council they were officially homeless and sofa surfing.
uncertain
they → contact → council
A council officer promised to call back the following week – this never happened.
asserted
this → promise → ?
After months of silence, the council initiated their housing register application, however, the assigned housing caseworker to the pair had left the council by this point.
asserted
caseworker → initiate → point
Internal council documents indicated that officers tried to contact X and the other person, named as Y, between January and April 2024 about potential properties with no response.
asserted
officers → indicate → response
However, the council was not able to produce evidence of these communications to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).
asserted
council → produce → Ombudsman
In February, the new housing officer contacted X and Y who were still sofa surfing.
asserted
who → contact → X
Three months later, the council closed their housing application citing lack of response from the pair – but did not notify them of this.
asserted
council → close → this
The Ombudsman determined that “X and Y remained in contact with the council about their homeless application”.
asserted
X → determine → application
The report states: “It is also clear though the council accepted it had not transferred X and Y’s homeless application onto the new IT system at a time when X and Y’s caseworker also left.
asserted
caseworker → state → time
“I therefore consider it likely it is those issues which resulted in lack of contact rather than any failure on the part of X and Y.
asserted
which → consider → X
In those circumstances I consider the council at fault for closing the homeless application.”
asserted
council → consider → application
Throughout this period, friends of the couple confirmed with the council that they were staying with two different friends for a maximum of six nights per week, and in some cases only four nights per week.
asserted
they → confirm → week
The watchdog therefore determined that the council failed the pair in not providing them interim accommodation.
asserted
council → determine → accommodation
Read More
The council also failed to offer interim accommodation in 2024 – another fault.
asserted
council → read → 2024
It took until June 2025 for the council to accept housing duty.
asserted
council → take → duty
The couple were offered a property the council accepted was not suitable for their needs in October 2025 – yet it did not offer another property.
asserted
it → offer → property
The Ombudsman ordered Hounslow Council to pay the pair £1,000 for the distress caused.
asserted
Ombudsman → order → distress
The council were also told to contact X and Y to see if they still require housing.
asserted
they → tell → housing
A Hounslow Council spokesperson said: “The council is constantly striving to improve its performance, this includes having the appropriate regard for LGSCO findings.
asserted
this → say → findings
“We have apologised to the complainant and have taken the agreed actions, including a review of guidance on when temporary accommodation should be offered and recording of why it has not been.”
asserted
it → apologise → guidance
.JPG?width=1200&auto=webp&quality=75)