Having fled sex trafficking gangs in Belgium and Manchester, the woman from Albania thought she was finally safe when she arrived in west London with her two young children.

A single mother, she had been granted asylum in the UK and was ready to start a new life in the capital. But first they needed a home.

She approached Ealing council for help, telling housing officers she would feel “completely hopeless and unsafe” anywhere outside the city, where she was receiving vital support.

Three weeks later, Ealing council had found her a property – but it was more than 250 miles away in County Durham. If she refused to move, she would effectively be on the street.

“When I saw [the location], it was really bad. I was crying a lot, shaking,” she said. “My older daughter kept saying, ‘what’s happened, mummy? What’s happened?’ I was crying because I was really stressed. I felt they didn’t care.”

The woman, who cannot be named, won a legal challenge against the move in November when a high court judge ruled that Ealing council had acted unlawfully.

Ealing council said it recognised “the seriousness of the [high court] judgment and the importance of ensuring housing decisions fully reflect individuals’ circumstances”. It added: “We have taken on board the court’s findings and have strengthened our processes to ensure each case is assessed on an individual basis giving regard to vulnerability and safeguarding risks.”

The Albanian woman is one of hundreds of homeless people who have been handed “inhumane” ultimatums by London councils in recent years in which they are forced to choose between living on the streets or accepting a property hundreds of miles away in some of the poorest parts of England.

Charities say a number of London councils are acting unlawfully and targeting particularly vulnerable people, such as refugees or those who may not speak English, to get them off the books.

When the Albanian woman raised concerns about moving to County Durham, Ealing council officers assured her there would be adequate support services for trafficking victims in the area. They emailed her two links to relevant services in Durham as proof – except, one was based in Durham, North Carolina in the US, and the other in Durham, Ontario, Canada.

Ealing council still insists the County Durham property was suitable for the woman and are appealing the legal ruling, which followed a challenge in support of the woman by the housing charity Shelter.

The Guardian has learned of a separate case involving another Albanian woman, a 24-year-old mother who also survived sex trafficking.

Last November, she was moved by Redbridge council to a house 250 miles away in a town in north-east England. The relocation has separated her one-year-old daughter from her father, who still lives in London.

The woman, who is named IRT in legal proceedings, said she felt pressured to accept the council’s offer or risk becoming homeless on the streets with her young child.

The street where she now lives is partly abandoned, leaving her feeling isolated and fearful to leave the home.

“There was one night where a woman was screaming, maybe two metres away from my door,” she said. “She was saying, ‘Please don’t kill me,’ and another man said ‘I’m gonna kill you.’ No one else was outside. I was getting ready to call the police. My baby was crying, I was crying as well. I was so afraid.”

The move has also left an impact on her child. “I can see she has changed,” IRT said, “Right now, she’s not happy. She’s not playing too much. She doesn’t react as much. I’m still waiting for her to speak, at 19 months. She was so happy with her dad, smiling, running, waiting to go outside.”

After requesting a review of Redbridge council’s decision, Shelter and IRT have now filed an appeal to the county court.

“When I came here, I was all alone, with no one, just my baby. And everything has come back to me,” said IRT. “I have so many nightmares, so many days I don’t eat. Now I need to start from zero again.”

Redbridge council said demand for affordable housing “far exceeded” supply and that its staff ensure no decisions are taken without “proper consideration or in a way that disadvantages particular groups”.