Summary: Mr B complained about how the Council handled his homelessness. There was some fault by the Council, including delay dealing with the situation and providing accommodation unsuited to Mr B’s needs as a wheelchair user. That caused Mr B injustice, including living in unsuitable accommodation for four months. The Council agreed our recommendations to apologise, pay Mr B £2,150 and review what happened here.

Summary: Miss Y complains the Council failed to consider the needs of her household and did not award sufficient priority for a move via its housing register. The Ombudsman finds the Council failed to award reasonable preference to Miss Y when it should have done, but Miss Y has not lost the opportunity to receive an offer of suitable housing because of this error. The Council will, however, review Miss Y’s case and pay £400 for the distress caused by the fault.

Summary: The Ombudsman does not have reason to investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to end its housing duty in a homeless man’s case. This is mainly because the man has statutory review and appeal rights he can use to challenge the Council’s decision.

Summary: Mr B complains that the Council has failed to help him find accommodation despite his long-term homelessness. The Ombudsman finds the Council was at fault in failing to make further enquiries when Mr B sought assistance with housing in March 2018 and in failing to contact him to complete an assessment following the introduction of the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017. The Ombudsman has recommended a remedy for the injustice caused to Mr B.

Summary: A Ltd, a lettings agent, says the Council was at fault for a failure to ensure a tenant, Ms T was eligible for housing benefit or universal credit and for a failure to inform A Ltd if she was not eligible before asking A Ltd to let a property to her. The Council was not at fault. Ms T found the property herself and was eligible for benefits when the Council paid her deposit. She later lost eligibility. This was not the Council’s responsibility.

Summary: A homeowner complained about the Council’s refusal to take responsibility for disrepair she said was caused by works one of its contractors carried out to her property in 2009. But the Ombudsman will not investigate this matter because it is unlikely we would find grounds to fault the Council.

Summary: Mr D complains about the way the Council carried out its review of his housing register application. The Ombudsman has found no fault by the Council.

Summary: The Council delayed taking action to help prevent Miss B from becoming homeless, but this did not cause Miss B any significant injustice. There was no fault in the way the Council processed Miss B’s housing benefit claim.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the suitability of accommodation and the housing register. This is because the complainant could have used his review rights and because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

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

Summary: The Ombudsman does not have reason to investigate this complaint from a housing applicant that the Council had not given him enough priority for rehousing on medical grounds. This is because there is no sign of fault in the way the Council considered this matter.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s failure to support her request to move to a larger property. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. There is insufficient evidence that Mrs X has made a transfer application to her social housing landlord. If she makes an application and is dissatisfied she would need to complain to the Housing Ombudsman Service.