West London council apologises after family of four spent 18 months in one-room studio

A family of four was housed in a “one room studio flat” with damp and mould issues for a year and a half despite repeated complaints to their west London council. The family became homeless after they were evicted by their private landlord of 10 years. In September 2024, they were placed in the room in Ealing while their application for support was processed. Father of the family, referred to as Mr X in the report, said that it was “unreasonable to expect his four-person family to live, sleep and eat in one room”.

It took four months for the council to accept it owed the family a homelessness duty. 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”.

After asking the local authority to review the placement again, Ealing did not conclude its suitability review until 20 weeks later in January 2026, when it found the studio flat was not suitable for the family. Three months later, they were moved out of the studio. Following a review, Ealing Council has apologised and paid Mr X £1,450 in compensation. The Ombudsman ruled that there was a delay in Ealing Council’s response to Mr X’s homelessness application.

The Ombudsman also found the council took 20 weeks, rather than the required eight, to assess whether the accommodation was suitable. 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. “Four people living in one room was clearly not ideal,” the Ombudsman said. They added: “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.”