Islington Council has been ordered to pay £2,700 to a homeless woman it left stranded for several months while she awaited surgery for a chronic health condition. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) strongly criticised the North London council for its failure to assist a medically vulnerable resident, identified as Miss X, who endured a wait of over a year for suitable housing because the council took more than 10 months to determine whether it had a duty to help her.
Delays in Housing Decision
Miss X first approached the council for help in July 2024, as she was homeless and sofa-surfing while dealing with medical issues that had compromised her immune system. In September, the council acknowledged it owed her a 'relief duty' under the law and committed to helping her find accommodation in the private rented sector, requesting additional medical information from her GP.
Under the law, anyone who is legally homeless and eligible for assistance, regardless of priority need, receives council relief duty for 56 days. During this period, councils may offer temporary accommodation, but there is no guarantee. Once this period ends, a local authority's long-term 'main housing duty' begins, requiring it to offer long-term support to individuals deemed as 'priority need'—such as those with serious health problems—to secure stable housing and provide temporary accommodation in the interim.
Early in the process, Miss X informed the council that she was receiving Personal Independence Payments (PIP) for her health condition and that a medical professional had recommended surgery, which would require at least three months of recovery. PIP is awarded only to individuals with long-term physical or mental health conditions, disabilities, or difficulties with everyday tasks or mobility that are expected to last at least 12 months.
Communication Breakdown
After 82 days, in December 2024, the council wrote to Miss X stating that its relief duty had ended, but it failed to mention priority need or confirm whether it would continue to support her housing needs. From that point, she repeatedly contacted the council but faced delays in receiving responses, and the replies she did receive were inadequate. She filed a formal complaint on January 13, 2025, but the council took 66 working days to respond—more than four times its 15-day target. After she escalated the complaint to Stage 2, the council again missed its target, taking 39 days to reply.
In March, Miss X reminded the council that she was still receiving PIP and explained that her continued homelessness had forced her to stop treatments for her illness and prevented her from undergoing surgery. In April, the council upheld her complaint and promised to issue a decision on her homelessness case by May 13. However, it was not until June 11 that the council confirmed it owed Miss X main housing duty, and she was finally placed in temporary housing in July.
Ombudsman's Findings
Despite the council's explanation that the delay was due to waiting for specialist medical information, the watchdog determined that the council already had sufficient details about her vulnerability in October 2024 to reach the decision it made in June. The Ombudsman also criticised the council's poor record-keeping and communications, noting that it ignored multiple requests for support from Miss X, including during her complaint process, and significantly missed target response times. The council attributed the communication breakdown to a caseworker leaving, which resulted in incomplete records.
The watchdog ordered the council to apologise to the woman for the injustice and to make a symbolic payment of £2,700—equivalent to £300 for each month she was deprived of suitable accommodation—instead of the council's earlier offer of financial remedy. However, the Ombudsman did not recommend any service improvements because the council had already agreed to implement changes.
Council's Response
An Islington Council spokesperson said: “We accept the findings of the Ombudsman report and sincerely apologise for the failings identified in this case and for the distress this caused to the individual involved. We recognise the impact this had and have agreed to fully implement the Ombudsman’s recommendations. We have already taken steps to address the issues identified, including introducing new procedures to improve timeliness, strengthening oversight of communication standards, and ensuring earlier and more robust assessments of priority need. We have also increased capacity within the service following targeted recruitment to better manage demand and improve resilience.”
