Hounslow Council safeguarding team say they will learn from the case of ‘CLT’ – a child who the High Court decided they should have ‘looked after’

Anonymous child image Annie Spratt / Unsplash

CLT case does not meet the criteria to warrant an independent investigation say Hounslow Council

Hounslow Council has said it will not be carrying out an independent Child Safeguarding Practice Review in the case of ‘CLT’, the orphaned boy the High Court recently held the Council should have ‘looked after’, but they will learn from this case and consider it when making decisions in future.

CLT and his sister lived for five years in ‘squalid conditions’ in their council owned home after their parents died, ‘without anyone taking parental responsibility’ according to the Coram Children’s Legal Centre, who took the Council’s decision over his care to a judicial review and won.

READ ALSO: High Court finds LB Hounslow fails in its duty of care for orphaned child

When we reported the judge’s findings the Leader of the opposition Conservative Group on Hounslow Council, Cllr Peter Thompson, wrote a formal letter to LB Hounslow’s CEO Mandy Skinner asking for there to be a Serious Case Review (now called a Child Safeguarding Practice Review).

Cllr Thompson, who represents Chiswick Riverside ward, told The Chiswick Calendar he found the case “deeply troubling”. There appeared to have been “a serious failure of care” by the Council:

“I believe this is essential to understand what went wrong, ensure accountability, and, most importantly, prevent anything like this from happening again to children in our borough”.

READ ALSO: Opposition call for investigation into why LB Hounslow failed to look after two vulnerable children

The case does not warrant a Safeguarding Review, the Council has told The Chiswick Calendar. Though the judge found the child should have been ‘looked after’ by them, which has a precise meaning in law, he also decided the Council had not failed in its ‘safeguarding’ duty, which also has a precise definition in law, so the case would not meet the required threshold for a statutory multi-agency review.

Only the most serious cases meet the threshold for a Child Safeguarding Practice Review, some 300 cases a year nationally. They are convened when a child dies or suffers serious harm from abuse or neglect, to identify systemic improvements by analysing how agencies worked together, to prevent future incidents.

Relative who was supposed to be looking after CLT was often absent and eventually abandoned him

In CLT’s case, he lost his mother in 2018 and then his father two years later, when he was 11. Hounslow agreed he and his sister could carry on living in their council owned home, and the High Court found by doing that, technically they owed him a duty of care as a ‘looked after’ child, which involves taking greater responsibility for his care.

LB Hounslow did not class CLT as a ‘looked after’ child and did not take on the responsibility that entailed.

The Council’s lawyer argued the children were not their responsibility because they considered them to have been privately fostered. When their father died Hounslow agreed CLT and his sister could return to their home address to be cared for by their neighbour. They also contacted other potential carers. A Hounslow social worker advised the children that without a suitable carer, they would be placed in care.

It was suggested by a family member that a distant cousin could look after them and this was recorded by Hounslow as a private fostering arrangement, but the court heard this cousin, identified as ‘IF’, was negligent and frequently absent.

According to the Coram Children’s Legal Centre, despite numerous warnings raised by the children and social workers, Hounslow did not take any significant steps to help them. The house has fallen into disrepair and, in mid-2025, IF left without returning.

Kelly Everett, senior solicitor at the Coram Children’s Legal Centre, 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”.

Hounslow Council’s response to the judgement and to Cllr Thomson’s request for an investigation

The Council has now made a considered response to the judgement and to Cllr Thompson’s request for an investigation. Here is what they said:

“Following the tragic deaths of both parents, the Council worked to support ‘CLT’ and his sister to remain together within their extended family, in line with the wishes of the family and the children.

“The High Court has clarified that, in enabling the children to remain in the family home, which was a council property, with the understanding they would be cared for there by an adult relative, the legal threshold was met for the Council to be providing that accommodation under Section 20 of the Children Act 1989, and consequently  ‘CLT’ should have been treated as a ‘looked after’ child.

“This brings additional statutory responsibilities for the Council and the children’s carers, which go beyond those for a child considered to be living with family.

“The Court rejected claims that the Council had failed in its safeguarding duties or in providing support to ‘CLT’ as a child in need, so any form of safeguarding review is unwarranted.

“We will continue to support the young person, now as a looked after child and then as a care leaver in adulthood. We accept the Court’s determination and although these were exceptional circumstances, we will amend future decision making accordingly should the situation arise again”.

Read more stories on The Chiswick Calendar