A shocking report recently lifted the lid on the 'horrific' conditions facing one Stockport family with seven kids.

Basics like running water and heating were missing from the home they were living in, the cupboards were empty, and the rooms covered in mess and hoarding.

During a police visit in November 2023, officers described conditions as 'the worst they had seen in a very long time', and the children were removed from their family.

The Stockport Safeguarding Children Partnership, made up of the council, GMP and NHS Greater Manchester, launched a Local Child Safeguarding Practice Review into what happened.

So what went wrong and left the kids living in such heartbreaking conditions?

"I heard the police report on it at one of the children's safeguarding meetings and it turned my stomach," said Wendy Meikle, a councillor for more than two decades and Stockport council's cabinet member for children's issues.

The safeguarding report, published in January 2025, revealed that the family had been known to social services for 10 years.

It asked questions over whether more could have been done to intervene by the authorities involved.

Cllr Meikle said: "I asked why it was allowed to go on for so long and was told we worked with the family, we told them what we expected, they would do it, but a couple of months later it would lax back again, you can't live with someone [the family] for 24 hours and supervise them.

"You would imagine that if they [the parents] thought social services were going to get involved, under normal circumstances they would improve the conditions for the youngsters."

The children's suffering was known to a number of agencies and partners.

Evidence in the safeguarding review revealed that there were 'concerns about the children's hygiene and school attendance' due to the conditions they were living in.

There were also health fears, with 'exceptionally poor dental health' recorded, and a pattern of missed appointments.

The review's report highlighted that professionals including the police, employment and benefit workers, housing, education and trades people doing jobs at the house had all raised the alarm about what was happening, so much so that it had become a 'common theme'.

"It seems like there's been a lot of involvement from different people and people were aware of it, but it didn't improve sufficiently," Coun Meikle explained.

"You would hope if someone can see a child living nearby who is being neglected, it would be the hope that somebody will phone the Multi-Agency Safeguarding and Support Hub and say it.

"We've also got the family hubs where people can walk in and get help if they need it, there's absolutely loads of preventative work in Stockport, we do so much, but bear in mind we've got almost 300,000 people living in Stockport, so unless you're made aware of it, it's difficult."

When officers from Greater Manchester Police (GMP) entered the home in November 2023, the children were taken away for their own benefit.

Police comments in the safeguarding report revealed that officers 'could not move easily around due to masses of rubbish and hoarded materials'.

GMP said in the report: "There was no heat, light or water, so no appliances could be used and there was no functioning bath or shower. The toilet only partially flushed, and the kitchen sink was connected to a hose which ran into the bathroom.

"There was no food in the cupboards, fridge or freezer. The upstairs floorboards were saturated with faeces and urine. There was no bedding and faeces all over the children's beds."

The police view was that the poor conditions in the home were not over a short period, but showed long-term neglect.

Social services staff had identified a number of concerns according to the safeguarding review, including 'bruising, physical chastisement, poor home conditions, lack of adult supervision, poor school attendance, domestic abuse, and the emotional wellbeing of the children.'

Efforts had been made to try to help the family.

The children had 'team around the child' plans, and were assessed as children in need on five occasions between 2014 – 2023.

They were also on child protection plans under the category of neglect twice: From July 2017 to June 2018 and from February to September 2022.

Before the children were removed in November 2023, social workers had visited just a few weeks before, in October.

They confirmed their 'shock at the poor state' of the home, and informed the parents of the need for a child protection conference.

But there were examples of where firmer action could have been taken by authorities, the safeguarding review found.

The report explained: 'Those involved in the review reflected on the likely lived experience of the children at the time, with them having to live in a home where they did not have adequate beds or bedding, where there was little to no food, where electricity, heating, and running water was limited, where there was excrement and urine on floors and mattresses, and where there was no space to sit or play.

'The environment was harmful to their physical health, development, emotional and mental health.

'There was a request, when the social workers visited, for the police to attend. They did not do so.'

The review found that police records stated social workers said 'there was no need' for officers to attend.

It identified a need to consider 'how detailed and assertive the requests for police attendance were.'

The report continued: 'The children in the family had lived in a dirty and cluttered home for most of their childhood, with many of their basic needs not always being met by their parents.

'There was little understanding over the years of the parent's ability to recognise the damage being inflicted on their children or to empathise with their experience, although they would improve the home conditions when helped and pressurised.

'When spoken to as part of the review the parents said they often needed 'a kick up the arse' to clean and tidy, but that the home conditions were never as bad as the professionals were stating and that the children knew they were loved and cared for.

'Indeed, agency records note a degree of physical affection from the parents to the children, but this was arguably given too much merit, and assumptions were made that this was therefore a family where the children were 'dirty but happy'.'

Part of the problem facing councils like Stockport is funding.

Coun Meikle said: "Anything like this really upsets you, I don't know whether it was the same social worker they had or they changed, sometimes we'll get a social worker who works with a family then they're off sick so you get another social worker in and they've got to start going through all the issues with the family.

"In a perfect world you'd have one social worker that would see the case through, but we're not in a perfect world and the government does not give us enough money.

"We've got to make £20m worth of cuts for next year, we've been making cuts and cuts and cuts for the past 15 years, you get to a point where you can't cut anything else."

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government was approached for comment.

Would more money lead to better outcomes for children in awful living conditions?

"Absolutely," Coun Meikle said. "you can employ more social workers, cut the cases down, they've got caseloads of up to 25 some of our social workers more experienced ones, you could cut those down so you can deal more quickly and effectively the cases they've got, but it's all down to funding."

The safeguarding report continued: 'There needed to be a rigorous consideration of whether the children's health needs were being met, including ensuring that there was effective reporting and sharing when the children are not being brought to appointments or seen by health professionals.

'The family tended to access health care through emergency departments but didn't then attend follow-up appointments. The review was told that at least 30 health appointments for the children had been missed.'

Issues were identified at school too.

The report stated: 'The children often presented as hungry in school and appeared tired and lacking in sleep.

'Their clothing was regularly dirty or inadequate, with the school providing coats in cold weather.

'The primary school shared that the parents have never attended parent's evening or SEND (special educational need and disabilities) meetings about one of their children and have not engaged with the school phone 'app' which is used for communication between teachers and parents.'

Before November 2023, there had been concerns around some of the children's behaviour in the local community.

In one instance, the police were involved because one of the young (pre-school) children was reported missing by the parents. He was later found asleep in a dog crate in the family's kitchen, the safeguarding review explained.

In light of this, there were discussions around removing them from the home 'due to the concerns they had about lack of supervision, the state of the home, and the discrepancy in accounts of the incident.'

But it was agreed that the children would remain at home, partly due to the 'difficulty there would be in finding appropriate placements for seven siblings.'

The safeguarding review added: 'There was limited challenge in relation to this, and the police informed the review that they are working with officers about the need to be more questioning.

'They are also reviewing the data on the use of police powers. CSC [Children's Social Care] are also working on strengthening contingency planning in cases of on-going neglect. A recent Ofsted focused visit said that CSC were missing opportunities to crystalise support from families.'

The review resulted in a practice improvement process.

This included planning for co-allocation of large families to two social workers, and peer multi-agency supervision in neglect child protection cases.

But concerns were raised about how these learning have been scrutinised at Stockport council.

Cllr Christine Carrigan, leader of the opposition Labour group in Stockport, said: "I was deeply concerned to learn of this case, though I am reassured that the Safeguarding Partnership conducted a thorough investigation and published its findings.

"It seems, however, that this matter was not raised or discussed in any council meetings, which raises questions about how such information is shared with members.

"It is vital that when failings occur, in any department, that we are open and transparent as a council. This enables members to support improvement work and to carry out our scrutiny role effectively.

"I have already raised my concerns with the leader of the council and senior officers and have asked they work with me to ensure that lessons will be learnt and this will be addressed."

A spokesperson for the Stockport Safeguarding Children Partnership said: "This has been a deeply distressing case, and partners across the Stockport Safeguarding Children Partnership have taken significant steps to strengthen how we identify and respond to neglect.

"These improvements include enhanced oversight, closer joint working between agencies, and increased frequency of home visits.

"Our thoughts remain with the children and families affected. We are fully committed to learning every possible lesson from this case to prevent similar situations in the future.

"Safeguarding reviews in Stockport are commissioned by the Stockport Safeguarding Partnership, which brings together senior leaders from the council, the NHS, and Greater Manchester Police. These reviews are focused on learning and improving outcomes for children and young people, in line with statutory guidance set out by the Department for Education.

"All completed reviews are published immediately on the Partnership's website and are presented to all councillors for scrutiny each November, ensuring transparency, accountability, and continuous improvement in safeguarding practice across Stockport."