Summary: Ms X complains about how the Council dealt with her suitability review request. Ms X says the Council did not complete one within the required statutory timescales. She says this caused her an injustice because she had to stay in accommodation she felt was unsuitable and the disrepair issues caused damage to her belongings. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for failing to complete the suitability review. We recommend the Council pay Ms X £1350.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about how the Council handled their homelessness and housing register applications. The Council was not at fault for not providing them with interim accommodation as it did not have a duty to do so. The Council was at fault as it delayed making decisions on Mr and Mrs X’s housing register applications and it did not issue a decision letter when it ended its duty to relieve them of their homelessness. However, these faults did not cause them an injustice. The Council was at fault when it did not keep an appointment it booked with Mr and Mrs X. Mr and Mrs X went to extra time and trouble in visiting the Council’s offices more times than necessary, causing them stress and inconvenience. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay Mr and Mrs X £150 to recognise this.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss B’s complaint about the recent failure of an immersion heater and timer at the home of her mother, Mrs C, leaving her without hot water. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council causing injustice to the complainants, and the Ombudsman cannot achieve the result Miss B seeks.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about a housing officer entering the complainant’s home. This is because the Ombudsman has no power to investigate a council when it is carrying out housing management functions and acting as a landlord.

Summary: there was no fault in the way the Council considered Mr X’s homelessness application and his need for interim accommodation.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council has failed to take account of his personal circumstances and wrongly suspended him from bidding on properties under the housing allocation scheme. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered Mr X’s applications to join the housing register.

Summary: Ms D says the Council delayed progressing her housing and medical assessments in a timely manner. The Ombudsman has found some evidence of fault. He has completed the investigation and upheld the complaint. The Council has agreed to our recommended actions including an apology to Ms D.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council reducing her housing application banding from Band 1 to Band 2 following her refusal of a housing offer. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because the offer has now been withdrawn and her status returned to Band 1.

Summary: A homelessness applicant complained about the Council’s decision that it had no duty to house her. She also complained the Council had unreasonably tried to forcibly evict her from her temporary accommodation. But the Ombudsman cannot investigate the complaint because the applicant has already taken legal action against the Council concerning these matters.

Summary: Mr B complains the Council went back on an undertaking to make a second incentive payment to him as a landlord for renting his property to a tenant put forward by the Council. Had he known the Council would not make a second payment then he could have rented the property to a different local authority or rented the property privately and received a higher rent. The Council failed to provide information to landlords about the direct let scheme and gave incorrect information to Mr B. The Council has already apologised to Mr B and it will pay him £1933 within one month of the date of this decision.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council handled the complainant’s homelessness application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.