Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not deal properly with her when she and her children became homeless when fleeing domestic violence. There were delays while the Council argued with another council (Authority A) about whose responsibility it was to take her homelessness application. The Council provided her with temporary accommodation that she believed was not suitable.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council has refused their application to join the housing register. The Council is at fault as it has not properly considered the information Ms X supplied in support of her application. It has agreed to do so now.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council was at fault in the way it dealt with her Housing Application and removed a Medical Reasonable Preference despite her medical needs. The Ombudsman finds fault as the Council awarded Ms X an Additional Preference in error so raised her expectations of her housing priority and caused distress when removed. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and pay her £150 for the distress caused by this. The Ombudsman finds no fault in the way the Council removed Ms X’s Medical Reasonable Preference.

Summary: Mr X complained about the poor state of accommodation which the Council decanted him into due to subsidence in his current Council home. The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint. This is because it concerns a complaint from a Council tenant about the management of social housing and it falls within the remit of the Housing Ombudsman service.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss B’s complaint that her temporary accommodation is unsuitable. This is because it was reasonable to expect her to use her review and appeal rights.

Summary: Ms X complains about the way the Council dealt with her homelessness and housing applications. There was some fault with the way the Council considered the suitability of Ms X’s interim accommodation. This warrants a remedy to Ms X.

Summary: Ms F complains that the London Borough of Wandsworth placed her in temporary accommodation that was infested with bed bugs and left her without heating or hot water for a period of 12 days. The evidence suggests that once it was aware of the problems the Council moved Ms F to alternative accommodation promptly. So, there are no grounds to consider the Council was at fault in its handling of these matter. There are no grounds for me to ask the Council to reimburse Ms F for infested furniture.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council placed her in unsuitable temporary bed and breakfast accommodation. The Council carried out the necessary checks on the property to decide it was suitable interim accommodation for single adults. It also considered Miss X’s circumstances and needs before deciding it was appropriate for her. There was no fault by the Council.

Summary: The Ombudsman found no corroborating evidence to make a finding of fault on Mr B’s complaint about the Council misleading him about refunding the £600 fee he paid when it issued an improvement notice for various works needed to a property he owns. The only evidence is the word of Mr B and that of the officer. It was not fault for the officer to issue the notice. This is because of the severity of the hazards found, Mr B’s attempts to negotiate about heaters, and the tenant family’s vulnerability.

Summary: Miss B complains about the Council’s handling of her request for housing help. Miss B complains the Council placed her in unsuitable bed and breakfast accommodation in 2012 and has still not provided her with permanent accommodation. The Council was not at fault for not offering Miss B permanent accommodation yet. Also, Miss B’s complaint about bed and breakfast accommodation is late and there are not good reasons to investigate this part of the complaint now.

Summary: Mr A’s complains about how the Council handled his application to the warm homes scheme. The Ombudsman has found fault in how the Council dealt with the application. However, we consider the Council has already taken sufficient steps to put things right.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision that he does not qualify for its housing register. There was no fault in the way the Council reached this decision. The Council was at fault as it delayed reviewing this decision but it kept Mr X updated with the likely outcome and so this did not cause Mr X a significant injustice.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council giving him unsuitable emergency accommodation and then evicting him without good reasons. The Ombudsman should not exercise his discretion to investigate this complaint. This is because some of the complaint relates to matters outside the 12-month period for complaints. Only the courts could decide whether the decision to evict Mr X was reasonable and legal.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s refusal to place her housing application in a higher banding. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: Miss X complains about the Council’s decision not to award her medical priority for re housing. The Ombudsman will not investigate as Miss X can ask the Council to review its decision.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about the way the Council has dealt with her homelessness application. Further consideration of the complaint is unlikely to find fault in the way the Council has made its decision.

Summary: Mrs X asked the Council to help her move to Sussex nearer her son’s care home in Hove. The Council offered to provide a house to a Brighton and Hove Council housing applicant if Brighton and Hove would house Mrs X. But the other council did not agree. I find no fault in the Council’s actions. I do not uphold her complaint.