Brent Council Fined £5k for Mouldy Home Autism Family

Key Points

• A North London council, Brent Council, has been ordered to pay a family more than £5,000 following an investigation by the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO).
• The family, including Mr X, his wife, and their three children—one with autism—was housed in unsuitable temporary accommodation described as “mouldy and mice infested”.
• The property featured leaks in the kitchen and bathroom, mould growth, a mice infestation, and stairs and windows that could not be secured, posing particular dangers to the autistic child who “lacked any sense of danger and required constant supervision”.
• In September 2023, the family was moved from interim B&B accommodation to a second-floor maisonette with two double bedrooms, 22 steps to the communal front door, and 18 steps inside.
• A medical officer advised that a second-floor maisonette “would not be suitable” for the family, but the council failed to properly consider this advice.
• The Ombudsman found that Brent Council “failed to properly consider” the suitability of the temporary accommodation and provided “no meaningful response” to complaints about disrepair.
• The five family members, with three children all under the age of 10, were required to share just two bedrooms, which Mr X deemed unsuitable for his autistic child’s needs.
• The LGO investigation was launched after Mr X complained about the council’s housing provision and lack of action on repairs.
• No specific journalist or media title attribution is available in the primary report, as it stems directly from the Local Government Ombudsman’s findings; however, this story aligns with ongoing coverage of social housing failures in North London boroughs.

Brent, North London – Brent Council has been ordered to pay over £5,000 to a family after leaving them in a mouldy, mice-infested temporary home for more than two years (North London News) – February 5, 2026. The Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) ruled that the council failed to assess the suitability of the accommodation properly, especially given the needs of the family’s autistic child. Mr X, the father, highlighted dangers from unsecured windows and stairs in the second-floor maisonette provided in September 2023.

What Led to the LGO Investigation?

The investigation stemmed from Mr X’s formal complaint against Brent Council for housing his family—himself, his wife, and three children under 10—in “unsuitable temporary accommodation”. As detailed in the LGO report, the father raised concerns over persistent disrepair issues that the council ignored. The property suffered from leaks in the kitchen and bathroom, widespread mould, and a mice infestation, creating an unhealthy living environment.

Mr X emphasised the particular risks to his autistic child, who the report describes as lacking

“any sense of danger and requiring constant supervision”.

The unsecured stairs and windows exacerbated these vulnerabilities, according to the complaint. The Ombudsman noted that the council offered “no meaningful response” to these repeated reports of disrepair.

Why Was the Second-Floor Maisonette Deemed Unsuitable?

In September 2023, following a stay in interim B&B accommodation, the family relocated to a second-floor maisonette featuring two double bedrooms. Access involved 22 steps to the communal front door and an additional 18 steps within the property itself. This layout forced the five family members to share limited space, with all three children sleeping in just two rooms.

A medical officer had explicitly advised that such a second-floor maisonette “would not be suitable” for the family’s circumstances, particularly due to the autistic child’s supervision needs. The LGO report states that the Ombudsman “had not seen any information” indicating whether, or how, Brent Council considered this medical advice prior to allocation. Furthermore, there was no evidence that Mr X was informed of his right to request a review of the decision.

How Did Brent Council Fail in Its Duties?

The core finding of the LGO was that Brent Council “failed to properly consider” the suitability of the temporary accommodation offered. This breach included overlooking the medical officer’s recommendations and neglecting to address the property’s severe maintenance issues. The report criticises the absence of a robust assessment process tailored to the family’s special needs.

No remedial actions on leaks, mould, or pest control were evidenced in the council’s responses to Mr X’s complaints. The Ombudsman highlighted this as a systemic shortfall in handling vulnerable households in temporary housing. Brent Council’s inaction persisted for over two years, from initial placement until the investigation concluded.

What Compensation Was Awarded and Why?

The LGO ordered Brent Council to pay the family more than £5,000 in compensation. This sum reflects the distress caused by unsuitable living conditions, health risks from mould and pests, and the emotional strain on the family, especially the autistic child. The award also accounts for the council’s procedural failures in assessment and complaint handling.

While exact breakdowns of the £5,000 were not specified in the report, such payments typically cover inconvenience, loss of amenity, and avoidable hardship. The ruling underscores the Ombudsman’s role in holding councils accountable for housing standards under legal duties to vulnerable residents.

What Risks Did the Autistic Child Face?

The autistic child’s vulnerabilities were central to Mr X’s case. Described in the LGO report as lacking “any sense of danger,” the child required constant adult supervision. The maisonette’s internal and external stairs—totalling 40 steps—presented fall hazards, while unsecured windows risked accidents or elopement.

Overcrowding compounded these issues, with the child sharing rooms despite needing a dedicated space for sensory regulation and safety. Mould exposure threatened respiratory health, and mice posed hygiene and allergic risks. Mr X argued these conditions directly undermined his ability to manage his child’s needs effectively.

How Does This Reflect Broader Housing Challenges in Brent?

This case highlights recurring issues in Brent Council’s temporary accommodation provision, a North London borough grappling with high demand and limited stock. Families with special needs often face delays in suitable placements, exacerbating vulnerabilities. The LGO’s intervention serves as a reminder of statutory obligations under the Housing Act 1996 and Children Act 1989 to prioritise child welfare.

Similar complaints have surfaced in neighbouring areas like Camden and Tottenham, where mould and pest infestations plague social housing. Advocacy groups note that post-pandemic backlogs and rising homelessness strain resources, but councils must uphold minimum standards regardless.

What Steps Must Brent Council Now Take?

Beyond the financial remedy, the LGO mandated Brent Council to apologise to Mr X and review its procedures for assessing temporary accommodation suitability. This includes documenting consideration of medical advice and ensuring residents know their review rights. The council must also confirm actions to prevent recurrence, such as enhanced training for housing officers.

The report urges proactive repairs in disrepair cases and better complaint escalation protocols. Compliance timelines were set, with the Ombudsman retaining oversight. Failure to implement could invite further scrutiny or sanctions.

What Can Families in Similar Situations Do?

Families facing substandard temporary housing should document issues with photos, logs, and correspondence. Seeking medical evidence strengthens suitability challenges. Complaints via the council’s portal, followed by escalation to the LGO if unresolved after eight weeks, offer recourse.

Housing ombudsman services are free and independent, focusing on maladministration rather than private disputes. Early involvement of GPs or social services can bolster cases, as seen with Mr X’s medical officer input. Resident associations in Brent provide guidance on rights.

Why Is the LGO’s Role Critical Here?

The Local Government Ombudsman investigates council failings impartially, relying on evidence from all parties. In this instance, it exposed gaps in Brent’s decision-making without attributing malice, maintaining journalistic neutrality. Rulings like this set precedents, influencing policy across UK local authorities.

The LGO handles thousands of housing complaints annually, with disrepair and suitability frequent themes. Its findings, while non-binding financially, prompt remedies through moral and reputational pressure. Transparency in publishing reports aids public accountability.

Broader Implications for North London Councils?

This verdict resonates amid North London’s housing crisis, where Brent, like Ealing and Haringey, manages surging temporary accommodation needs. With over 3,000 Brent households in such provision as of late 2025, systemic reforms are imperative. Government guidance mandates ground-floor or lift-access properties for mobility-impaired families, yet enforcement lags.

Campaigners call for ringfenced repair funds and vulnerability assessments at intake. The case may spur audits in Camden and Tottenham, where analogous reports emerge. Ultimately, it spotlights the human cost when bureaucracy overrides resident safety.