Hounslow Council Left Orphans in 'Squalid Conditions'

Court rules that borough put financial considerations before children's welfare

Hounslow Council's headquarters

February 11, 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 treating him as a “looked after” child. Although two siblings were affected, the case was brought on behalf of only one of them.

The boy, referred to in court as Child X, had lived in a Hounslow Council property until he became an orphan aged 11 in 2020, following the death of his father during the Covid pandemic. His mother had died two years earlier, and the tenancy had been succeeded to his father. Under succession rules, the child became a “trespasser” in his own home.

After a brief stay with a neighbour, a distant cousin moved in to care for Child X and his sister. The arrangement, orchestrated by the council, allowed the cousin and the children to return to the family home. However, the council failed to provide the cousin with the legal information required for private foster carers until much later, and the care provided was described as poor, with the cousin frequently absent and negligent.

When the cousin stopped paying rent, the council chose not to evict him or take the children into care. Instead, it paid the arrears itself — a decision the court viewed as evidence that the council was actively “providing accommodation” to sustain the arrangement.

In mid-2025, the cousin abandoned the children entirely. The home deteriorated into disrepair, and the siblings lived in “squalid conditions” despite repeated concerns raised by both the children and multiple social workers.

Deputy High Court Judge Benjamin Douglas-Jones KC found that the council’s decision to classify the situation 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 avoided the full legal and financial obligations of a Section 20 duty, which would have required it to treat Child X as “looked after” and provide appropriate housing, maintenance and social work support. The council argued that the child did not “require” accommodation because he was physically living in a house, but the court rejected this as “circular reasoning”, noting that he had no legal right to remain there and only stayed because the council chose not to evict him.

The case was brought by Coram Children’s Legal Centre (CCLC). Senior Solicitor Kelly Everett said the ruling “makes clear that local authorities must meet their legal duties to vulnerable children,” adding that informal arrangements cannot be used to avoid statutory responsibilities. She emphasised that a child’s legal status has profound consequences for their safety, stability and access to support as they approach adulthood.

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.”

The judgment has prompted a strong political response. The Conservative Group Leader on Hounslow Council has called for an urgent independent Serious Case Review, arguing that the failures identified by the court raise wider safeguarding concerns.

The court heard that the boy — referred to in some documents as “CLT” — and his sister were left for five years in unsafe and degrading conditions despite the council being repeatedly alerted to their situation. The judge found that Hounslow had effectively “orchestrated” their placement with an unsuitable carer while retaining ultimate responsibility, yet took no meaningful action when warnings were raised by professionals and by the children themselves.

In response, Conservative councillors have written formally to the Council’s Chief Executive demanding a full, independent Serious Case Review examining safeguarding decision-making, oversight of private fostering arrangements, and whether similar failures could exist elsewhere in the borough.

Cllr Peter Thompson, Conservative Group Leader, said, “This is a deeply disturbing case that should trouble every resident in Hounslow. Two vulnerable, orphaned children were effectively abandoned by a council that had a clear legal duty to protect them. This cannot be brushed aside as a one-off mistake. We need an independent Serious Case Review so we can understand exactly what went wrong, hold those responsible to account, and ensure that no child in Hounslow is ever treated like this again.”

Written with contributions from Philip James Lynch - Local Democracy Reporter