Hounslow Council Left Orphans in 'Squalid Conditions'
Court rules that borough put financial considerations before children's welfare
Hounslow Council's headquarters
February 10, 2026
A High Court has ruled that Hounslow Council acted unlawfully and failed an orphaned child leaving him in “squalid conditions”, in order to avoid the financial burden of taking him on as “looked after.” While the child lived with his sister, who was also a child, the case was bought on behalf of only one of them.
The child, who will be referred to as Child X, lived in a Hounslow Council house until he became an orphan aged 11 in 2020, following the death of his father during the Covid pandemic. His mother had passed away two years earlier, and the tenancy had been succeeded to his father.
As a result of these tenancy succession laws, the child became a “trespasser” in his own home. After a brief stay with a neighbour, a distant cousin moved in to take care of him and his sister. The arrangement, which was orchestrated by the council, allowed for the cousin and the children to move back into the family home.
The council was found to have failed to provide the cousin with legal information required for private foster carers until significantly later in the fostering arrangement. This arrangement was poor, with the cousin being negligent and frequently absent.
The cousin stopped paying rent to the council, and instead of evicting him or taking the children into care, the council paid the arrears themselves. This was viewed by the court as proof that Hounslow Council was actively “providing accommodation” to keep this arrangement afloat.
In mid-2025, the children were abandoned by their cousin. The home fell into disrepair and the children lived in “squalid conditions” despite concerns raised by both the children and the numerous social workers.
The judgement states that the council’s decision making process (in ensuring this was marked as a private fostering arrangement) “bears the hallmarks of a retrospective attempt to categorise the arrangement to fit a desired financial outcome, rather than a genuine pre-existing private arrangement.”
By insisting the arrangement was private, the council was able to avoid the full financial and legal obligations of a section 20 duty – making the child “looked after” – which would have required substantial funding for housing, maintenance, and social work support.
Hounslow Council argued that the child did not “require” accommodation” because he was physically living in a house, however the court rejected this as “circular reasoning.” The child had no legal right to the house, and he only lived there because the council chose not to evict him.
Deputy High Court Judge, Benjamin Douglas-Jones KC ruled that the council could not use its own decision not to evict as an excuse to claim a child doesn’t need help. The case was bought by Coram Children’s Legal Centre (CLCC).
Kelly Everett, Senior Solicitor at CCLC, said: “For too long, children who have nobody to care for them have been let down by systems that are meant to protect them. This ruling makes clear that local authorities must meet their legal duties to vulnerable children, including recognising when a child needs to be treated as ‘looked after’ and ensuring they receive proper care, accommodation and support.
“The judgment reinforces that informal arrangements and partial support cannot be used to avoid statutory responsibilities, and that children should not be left in legal limbo without the protections the law provides. Crucially, it recognises that a child’s legal status has profound consequences for their safety, stability and future, including access to the statutory support that flows from being a looked-after child as they approach adulthood.
“This decision sends a strong and important message that children’s rights matter, that the law must be applied properly, and that families and carers are entitled to expect accountability, clarity and fairness from public bodies when caring for children in need.”
A Hounslow Council spokesperson said: “Proceedings are ongoing and we are considering the implications of this judgment, which highlights the delicate balance Local Authorities are required to perform when considering how best to exercise their statutory responsibilities both to safeguarding children and promoting their upbringing within their family.
“Our priority remains safeguarding and supporting children within our community. As this matter is still live and concerns private information about a family, it would not be appropriate for us to comment further at this time.”
Philip James Lynch - Local Democracy Reporter
Like Reading Articles Like This? Help Us Produce More This site remains committed to providing local community news and public interest journalism. Articles such as the one above are integral to what we do. We aim to feature as much as possible on local societies, charities based in the area, fundraising efforts by residents, community-based initiatives and even helping people find missing pets. We’ve always done that and won’t be changing, in fact we’d like to do more. However, the readership that these stories generates is often below that needed to cover the cost of producing them. Our financial resources are limited and the local media environment is intensely competitive so there is a constraint on what we can do. We are therefore asking our readers to consider offering financial support to these efforts. Any money given will help support community and public interest news and the expansion of our coverage in this area. A suggested monthly payment is £8 but we would be grateful for any amount for instance if you think this site offers the equivalent value of a subscription to a daily printed newspaper you may wish to consider £20 per month. If neither of these amounts is suitable for you then contact info@neighbournet.com and we can set up an alternative. All payments are made through a secure web site. One-off donations are also appreciated. Choose The Amount You Wish To Contribute. If you do support us in this way we’d be interested to hear what kind of articles you would like to see more of on the site – send your suggestions to the editor. For businesses we offer the chance to be a corporate sponsor of community content on the site. For £30 plus VAT per month you will be the designated sponsor of at least one article a month with your logo appearing if supplied. If there is a specific community group or initiative you’d like to support we can make sure your sponsorship is featured on related content for a one off payment of £50 plus VAT. All payments are made through a secure web site. |