Shanice Aird, living in temporary council housing in West London, received a notice of rent doubling days after publicly criticising Ealing Council’s handling of poor living conditions. The council later said the increase was sent in error, sparking concerns over treatment of tenants who speak out.
A West London mother has been notified by Ealing Council that her rent is set to nearly double, a development she attributes to potential retribution for her recent public criticism of the council’s handling of her housing situation. Shanice Aird, 31, who resides in temporary accommodation provided by the council along with her three children, disclosed to the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) earlier this month that her living conditions were plagued by mould and safety hazards.
Just days after speaking out about these issues, Ms Aird received a letter indicating that her weekly rent would increase from £230 to £415. She characterised the rent hike as a possible act of “retaliation,” believing the council may have been responding to her complaints about the accommodation. She expressed her concerns by saying, “It made me feel like there is genuinely a personal vendetta against me from the council, because I haven’t been one to put up and shut up with them.” She further described the letter as a “scare tactic,” comparing the effect to intimidation, and highlighted the stress it had caused her and other residents facing similar challenges.
The letter, dated 11 April, was sent four days after an article was published featuring her account of the poor conditions, which included issues such as mould and faulty electrics that had even led to a fire. Ms Aird currently lives in a two-bedroom home rented from the council, which she faces eviction from soon as the landlord intends to repossess the property. Despite asking for a suitable alternative, she has yet to be offered accommodation she deems appropriate.
Ealing Council responded to inquiries from the LDRS by stating the rent increase notice had been sent “in error.” A council spokesperson explained, “We originally believed this property’s lease was being renewed as part of a wider renewal of leases and letters were sent to all impacted households. Unfortunately, the letter sent to Shanice was sent in error as the landlord had requested their property back.” The council also stated that an alternative property had previously been offered to Ms Aird, which she declined, and a further offer would be made within the next six to eight weeks.
Ms Aird had previously been offered housing in Southall but declined due to a traumatic experience there, which included witnessing a stabbing near the property and subsequently developing post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). On her relationship with the council, she remarked, “They don’t want people to know what they’re doing is incompetent and negligent. As a sort of government body they need to come across as professional and up to standard when in actual fact, they’re not.”
There was also a dispute concerning alleged rent arrears amounting to £136, which Ms Aird denied, stating that her housing benefit payments are made directly to the council for rent, making it impossible for arrears to accumulate unnoticed. The council did not provide a response to queries about these arrears.
Ealing Council emphatically denied the accusation of deliberately targeting Ms Aird for speaking to the media. The spokesperson affirmed, “Ealing Council would never and has never maliciously targeted someone for speaking to the media and we categorically refute this accusation.”
The situation highlights ongoing difficulties within the housing system faced by Ms Aird and her family, including concerns about safety, inappropriate relocation offers, and communication breakdowns with housing authorities.
Source: Noah Wire Services
- https://noah-news.com/mother-of-three-describes-broken-housing-system-after-eviction-notice/ – Corroborates Shanice Aird’s dispute with Ealing Council over alleged rent arrears and unsafe housing conditions.
- https://harrowonline.org/2025/04/15/mum-of-three-facing-eviction-from-unsafe-ealing-home-says-housing-system-is-broken/ – Supports claims about Ms. Aird facing eviction from unsafe temporary accommodation and criticizing the council’s housing management.
- https://ealing.nub.news/news/local-news/ealing-council-outlines-2025-plans-for-housing-greener-streets-and-job-growth-251232 – Validates broader context of Ealing Council’s housing challenges, including temporary accommodation crises and commitment to affordable housing.
- https://ealing.nub.news/news/local-news/hounslow-council-to-raise-social-housing-rents-by-maximum-allowed-from-april-251397 – Provides context on maximum permissible social housing rent increases (2.7%) in neighboring Hounslow, contrasting with Ms. Aird’s reported 80% hike.
- https://www.noahwire.com – Direct link to source publication mentioned in the query, though specific article URL isn’t provided.
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
9
Notes:
The narrative is relatively recent, referencing events from early April 2025, and does not appear to be outdated or repeated from older articles.
Quotes check
Score:
8
Notes:
Direct quotes are included, but the earliest known references could not be verified online. The narrative seems to be a genuine report without evidence of plagiarised quotes.
Source reliability
Score:
8
Notes:
The narrative originates from a specific news outlet, which may not be as widely recognized as major publications like the Financial Times or BBC, but it does provide detailed reporting and quotes from relevant parties.
Plausability check
Score:
7
Notes:
Claims about a disputed rent increase and allegations of retaliation from the council are plausible, given the context of public criticism and housing disputes, but evidence is limited, and some claims cannot be fully verified.
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): OPEN
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): MEDIUM
Summary:
The narrative appears fresh and includes direct quotes that seem original, but the lack of evidence regarding some claims, such as the disputed rent increase and retaliation, keeps the verdict open. Source reliability is moderate due to the nature of the publication.