The High Court has ruled that a west London council acted unlawfully and failed an orphaned child by 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, 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 it’s 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.”
