Summary: Mrs X complains the Council was at fault in the way it dealt with her housing register application and allocated her banding priority. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council refuses to remove an improvement notice against her property even though she has met the notice’s requirements. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about a tree. This is because the tree is managed by the Council’s housing team and the law prevents the Ombudsman from investigating any complaint about the Council acting as a landlord.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a £20 fee for medical evidence to support the complainant’s housing application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council was at fault in the way it dealt with her housing register application and allocated her banding priority. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council refuses to remove an improvement notice against her property even though she has met the notice’s requirements. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about a tree. This is because the tree is managed by the Council’s housing team and the law prevents the Ombudsman from investigating any complaint about the Council acting as a landlord.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a £20 fee for medical evidence to support the complainant’s housing application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice.

Summary: Miss B complains the Council unreasonably withdrew an offer of accommodation and excluded her from the Housing Register. The Ombudsman has found fault by the Council including in its delay in responding to Miss B’s review request and correcting its error which led to her wrongly being excluded from the Housing Register. The Ombudsman considers the agreed actions of an apology, payment of £300 and procedural improvements are enough to remedy Miss C’s time, trouble and uncertainty.

Summary: Mr B complains about how the Council dealt with the housing needs of his family, particularly in respect of homelessness. The Ombudsman finds there was fault by the Council in how it dealt with this family’s housing needs. The faults identified led to injustice for Mr B and his family. The Council provided some remedy for this, but further remedy is appropriate and has now been agreed.

Summary: Ms B complains about the Council’s actions in respect of her housing needs, about administration of its housing transfer list and the information it provided to her. The Ombudsman finds there was fault by the Council in this matter. The faults identified caused injustice to Ms B, for which the Council has now agreed a remedy.

Summary: Miss B complains the Council unreasonably withdrew an offer of accommodation and excluded her from the Housing Register. The Ombudsman has found fault by the Council including in its delay in responding to Miss B’s review request and correcting its error which led to her wrongly being excluded from the Housing Register. The Ombudsman considers the agreed actions of an apology, payment of £300 and procedural improvements are enough to remedy Miss C’s time, trouble and uncertainty.

Summary: Mr B complains about how the Council dealt with the housing needs of his family, particularly in respect of homelessness. The Ombudsman finds there was fault by the Council in how it dealt with this family’s housing needs. The faults identified led to injustice for Mr B and his family. The Council provided some remedy for this, but further remedy is appropriate and has now been agreed.

Summary: Ms B complains about the Council’s actions in respect of her housing needs, about administration of its housing transfer list and the information it provided to her. The Ombudsman finds there was fault by the Council in this matter. The faults identified caused injustice to Ms B, for which the Council has now agreed a remedy.

Summary: Mrs B complains the Council did not ensure the provider of temporary accommodation kept to the terms of the agreement she had with the Council for the payment of all utilities. Mrs B complained to the Property Ombudsman, had to pay extra for her utility supplies, and had time and trouble in resolving the matter. There was fault by the Council in the license agreement it had with Mrs B for the provision of temporary accommodation as it did not make clear the payment for utilities would be capped. There was fault by the Agent acting on behalf of the Council in paying for utilities. The Council should pay Mrs B £200 within one month of the date of the final decision. It will also undertake an affordability assessment of the property based on information provided by Mrs B.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about the Council’s housing allocation scheme and delays in being offered a home. Further consideration of the complaint is unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms B’s complaints about the Council and other agencies. The Ombudsman has no power to investigate many of Ms B’s complaints and the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider a complaint about a failure to protect Ms B’s data.

Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council dealt with her when she became homeless, and its decision not to allow her to join its housing register. The Council was at fault as it did not provide her with accommodation, and it gave false assurances she would be accepted onto its housing register with high priority. It did not consider whether overcrowding at her sister’s house should have led it to accept her housing register application. It then refused to take a new homelessness application. Miss X and her daughter spent longer than they should have sleeping on Miss X’s sister’s sofa. I recommend the Council apologises, pays £450 to Miss X and £150 to her sister. I recommend it backdates Miss X’s housing priority, and produces a written policy about home visits.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about service charges. This is because he has no power to investigate a Council when it is carrying out housing management functions. In addition, this is a late complaint.

Summary: Mr B complains about the Council’s consideration of his request for housing help. Mr B complains that the Council mishandled both his housing register application and homelessness application. We cannot investigate Mr B’s complaint about his housing register application because Mr B took the Council to court. We will not continue to investigate Mr B’s complaint about his homelessness application. This is because there is the possibility this will be considered as part of his appeal to the county court.

Summary: Halton Housing Trust delayed registering Mr B’s housing application documents and delayed carrying out a home visit to complete a housing options assessment. The Council then failed to follow the correct procedures for reviewing Halton Housing Trust’s decisions. These failings caused Mr B some frustration and put him to avoidable time and trouble. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mr B and take action to prevent similar failings in future.

Summary: Mr B complains about the Council’s consideration of his request for housing help. Mr B complains that the Council mishandled both his housing register application and homelessness application. We cannot investigate Mr B’s complaint about his housing register application because Mr B took the Council to court. We will not continue to investigate Mr B’s complaint about his homelessness application. This is because there is the possibility this will be considered as part of his appeal to the county court.

Summary: Halton Housing Trust delayed registering Mr B’s housing application documents and delayed carrying out a home visit to complete a housing options assessment. The Council then failed to follow the correct procedures for reviewing Halton Housing Trust’s decisions. These failings caused Mr B some frustration and put him to avoidable time and trouble. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mr B and take action to prevent similar failings in future.

Summary: Mrs B complains the Council did not ensure the provider of temporary accommodation kept to the terms of the agreement she had with the Council for the payment of all utilities. Mrs B complained to the Property Ombudsman, had to pay extra for her utility supplies, and had time and trouble in resolving the matter. There was fault by the Council in the license agreement it had with Mrs B for the provision of temporary accommodation as it did not make clear the payment for utilities would be capped. There was fault by the Agent acting on behalf of the Council in paying for utilities. The Council should pay Mrs B £200 within one month of the date of the final decision. It will also undertake an affordability assessment of the property based on information provided by Mrs B.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about the Council’s housing allocation scheme and delays in being offered a home. Further consideration of the complaint is unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms B’s complaints about the Council and other agencies. The Ombudsman has no power to investigate many of Ms B’s complaints and the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider a complaint about a failure to protect Ms B’s data.

Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council dealt with her when she became homeless, and its decision not to allow her to join its housing register. The Council was at fault as it did not provide her with accommodation, and it gave false assurances she would be accepted onto its housing register with high priority. It did not consider whether overcrowding at her sister’s house should have led it to accept her housing register application. It then refused to take a new homelessness application. Miss X and her daughter spent longer than they should have sleeping on Miss X’s sister’s sofa. I recommend the Council apologises, pays £450 to Miss X and £150 to her sister. I recommend it backdates Miss X’s housing priority, and produces a written policy about home visits.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about service charges. This is because he has no power to investigate a Council when it is carrying out housing management functions. In addition, this is a late complaint.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss B’s complaint about the way the Council dealt with her homelessness application. This is because it is reasonable to expect her to use the review and appeal rights the law provides.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss B’s complaint about the way the Council dealt with her homelessness application. This is because it is reasonable to expect her to use the review and appeal rights the law provides.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about damage to his property from exterior wall cladding. This is because the matter complained about is not an administrative function of the Council. It is therefore outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s parking control service on his estate. This is because he is complaining about a function which is part of the Council’s management of the housing estate it owns.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about damage caused to the complainant’s flat from the Council owned flat above. This is because the Ombudsman has no power to investigate a Council when it is acting as a landlord.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s banding on the housing register. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about damage to his property from exterior wall cladding. This is because the matter complained about is not an administrative function of the Council. It is therefore outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s parking control service on his estate. This is because he is complaining about a function which is part of the Council’s management of the housing estate it owns.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about damage caused to the complainant’s flat from the Council owned flat above. This is because the Ombudsman has no power to investigate a Council when it is acting as a landlord.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s banding on the housing register. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: The complainant says the Council failed to properly consider his disability and medical conditions when awarding priority to his housing application. The Council says it considered the information presented and its medical adviser’s advice before deciding priority. The Ombudsman finds the Council considered all relevant information when deciding priority and therefore acted without fault.

Summary: The complainant says the Council failed to properly consider his disability and medical conditions when awarding priority to his housing application. The Council says it considered the information presented and its medical adviser’s advice before deciding priority. The Ombudsman finds the Council considered all relevant information when deciding priority and therefore acted without fault.