Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain about the quality of damp-proofing work completed in their house since they received a vulnerable persons’ grant from the Council to fund it in 2013. The Ombudsman concludes although two attempts to resolve Mr and Mrs X’s damp issue have clearly failed, this was not because of fault by the Council. There was fault in how the Council explained its involvement in the later works, which caused some uncertainty, but it has already offered a remedy we consider satisfactory for this.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s failure to assist her in contesting the terms of the lease on her home. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council re-instating his housing application date from 2018 and not the original date of 2014 following a demotion of his banding status. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mrs B’s complaint that the Council dealt with her complaints about her neighbour in an unprofessional way. That is because the complaint is about the Council’s management of its social housing.

Summary: Miss Q complains about the Council’s housing allocations process. She says the Council has not given her a direct offer for housing even though she is eligible, has tried to avoid its responsibility to house her by pushing her into private rental accommodation, and given priority to those who lived near Grenfell Tower. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council’s handling of Miss Q’s housing application.

Summary: The Council removed a housing applicant’s welfare points without warning and failed to reconsider this, when it said it would. The Council failed to reconsider its decision to limit the applicant to bids for properties without stairs, saying it had medical evidence he could not use stairs when it did not. Because of the uncertainty this has caused Mr X has continued to live in a flat where he cannot have the medical equipment he needs. To put this right the Council will reconsider Mr X’s welfare and medical applications and make a payment for the delay and his time and trouble.

Summary: The Ombudsman does not have reason to investigate this complaint that the Council had not kept to a promise to write off a tenant’s rent arrears for her temporary accommodation and that it had failed to respond to her complaints about this matter. The Council has now written off the arrears and this is a sufficient remedy in the circumstances.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to backdate the complainant’s housing application. This is because it is a late complaint.

Summary: Mr C says the Council was at fault for a failure to house his family promptly when they became homeless and for other housing failures. The Council was at fault for delay in assessing the family’s need and in supplying bedding for his children and a failure to review the suitability of the accommodation. It should pay Mr C a sum in recognition of the distress caused and carry out the requested review.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council was too slow agreeing to grant her son medical priority under its housing allocation scheme after she applied for a transfer. The Ombudsman found fault by the Council in this case because it took eight months to make a decision on Mrs X’s housing allocation review request. Although the Council backdated her application to put her back in the position she would have been in, we have identified further injustice it should remedy too.

Summary: The Council delayed in processing a housing application which included Mr F. This amounts to fault. The effect of this delay was to deny Mr F the opportunity to bid for properties suitable to his health and mobility needs. Had he been in a position to, the evidence suggests he would have been able to successfully bid for an adapted property and live in more suitable accommodation. So, the fault caused Mr F injustice. The Council will take action to recognise this injustice by making an agreed payment of £750.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council failed to assist him to access accommodation during severe weather. This is because it is unlikely we could achieve anything for Mr B.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms B’s complaint the Council said she was ineligible to join the housing register. Further consideration of the complaint is unlikely to find fault by the Council. And the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to consider complaints about the date Ms B’s former Council tenancy ended or the amount of rent arrears arising at that property. The Ombudsman has no power to investigate complaints about the Council’s actions when acting as a registered social housing provider.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council did not respond properly to the complainant’s complaint about the landlord licensing scheme. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about his housing transfer request. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council which has affected its decision on this case.

Summary: The Council failed to take any action after it inspected Mr B’s home in 2016 and delayed taking any action after it inspected his home in 2017. As a result, Mr B has been living in poor housing conditions for longer than was unavoidable. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mr B and take action to prevent similar failings in future.