Summary: There was fault by the Council. It took too long to complete the sale of the leasehold interest to Miss B under the right to buy scheme. It sent wrongly dated letters and it failed to deal with her complaint in accordance with its complaints process. This caused Miss B distress and frustration and she had to renew her mortgage offer and pay more that she should have. The Council has apologised to Miss B and offered to pay her £10,495. It will also share this decision with its relevant officers reminding them that letters should be properly dated, and staff should follow the complaints process.

Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of his daughter, that the Council failed to properly assess her housing application and need for a second bedroom for an overnight carer. The Ombudsman finds the Council was not at fault in how it completed its assessment. However, there were delays in dealing with the application and contacting her doctor for information. These delays did not cause an injustice as Miss Y was not assessed as having a housing need.

Summary: The Council published an advert for a one-bedroom housing association property when it had two bedrooms. Mr X thought he had the highest placed bid and would get the property. The housing association withdrew the advert. The housing association would not have offered the property to Mr X even if the advert was correct. It gave priority to bidders who needed ground floor and a level access shower and Mr X did not need these. The Council has already provided a remedy for the advert by apologising to Mr X.

Summary: The Council published an advert for a one-bedroom housing association property when it had two bedrooms. Mr Y thought he had the highest placed bid and would get the property. The housing association withdrew the advert. The housing association would not have offered the property to Mr Y even if the advert was correct. It gave priority to bidders who needed ground floor and a level access shower and Mr Y did not need these. The Council has already provided a remedy for the advert by apologising to Mr Y.

Summary: Miss X complains the Council is pursuing her for a debt from 2013 which she does not agree she owes. We will not investigate this complaint. Miss X was aware in 2013 the Council intended to carry out works at her tenant’s address and charge Miss X. She could have complained earlier about this and its actions in relation to the tenant not paying rent, and therefore this complaint is late. In any event, we would be unlikely to find the Council at fault.

Summary: Ms C says the Council failed to accept she was in priority need of housing under s.195A of the Housing Act 1996 as it should have done and, as a result, placed her in unsuitable accommodation which caused her distress. The Council was at fault both for a failure to recognise it owed Ms C a s.195A duty and for placing the family in unsuitable accommodation but the former fault did not cause the latter. The Council has agreed to pay her £900.

Summary: Miss X has complained about how the Council dealt with concerns about her temporary accommodation. There is evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s assessment of her son’s housing application. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: Miss G complains the Council has discriminated against her by denying her need for a house move due to electromagnetic hypersensitivity. The Ombudsman’s view is we cannot criticise the professional judgement of the medical adviser, when there is no evidence of fault. And the complaint about discrimination is better considered by the courts.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s alleged failure to pay her an agreed amount of compensation. This is because there is no indication of fault by the Council.

Summary: The Ombudsman found fault on Miss W’s complaint about how the Council responded when told about her property flooding on 2 separate occasions. It failed to provide records, show it took account of her disabilities when contacting her, show steps it took to arrange visits, and failed to show how it concluded her property was not uninhabitable. The agreed action remedies the avoidable injustice caused.

Summary: Mr B complained about the way the Council dealt with his homeless application in September 2018 and from April 2019. We found there were delays by the Council in interviewing Mr B to obtain full information about his circumstances. This delayed the provision of interim accommodation by approximately a month. The Council has agreed to pay Mr B £300 and to review its procedures.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision on his homeless application in 2014 and 2015. The Ombudsman should not exercise his discretion to investigate this complaint. This is because the complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints and he made a previous complaint to us in 2017 about this matter.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council placing her in rented accommodation outside the Council’s area in 2018. She says she cannot bid for housing because it renewed her private rented tenancy for another year. The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint. This is because she could have appealed the Council’s homeless decision in 2018 and because there is no evidence of fault in its assessment of her current housing situation.

Summary: The Council did not consider its discretion to admit non-qualifying persons to the housing register. This meant the complainant was left uncertain as to whether the Council had properly considered his situation. The Council has agreed to review its policy so that there is a mechanism to depart from this in exceptional circumstances and admit applicants who would not ordinarily qualify to join the housing register.

Summary: The Council did not consider its discretion to admit non-qualifying persons to the housing register. This meant the complainant was left uncertain as to whether the Council had properly considered his situation. The Council has agreed to review its policy so that there is a mechanism to depart from this in exceptional circumstances and admit applicants who would not ordinarily qualify to join the housing register.

Summary: Ms X’s representative complained about the way the Council handed homelessness applications made by Ms X and the suitability of the accommodation the Council offered her. The Council was at fault when it failed to offer Ms X two rights to a review, placed her in unsuitable accommodation, including bed and breakfast placements, and delayed at times in its communications with her. The Council has agreed to make a financial payment of £3,225 and make procedural changes to remedy the distress and frustration this caused Ms X and her family.

Summary: Mr B complains about the Council’s handling of his application for a Crisis and Care Award for assistance to install a front door and frame at his property. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mr C complains that the Council failed to assist him with his homelessness problem. I have completed my investigation on the basis that there was no fault in the way the Council dealt with the issues Mr C has raised. Furthermore, Mr C had the opportunity to appeal the Councils homelessness decision in court.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint Councillor B has raised on behalf of a group of residents. Further consideration of the complaint is unlikely to find fault by the Council leading to the injustice the residents claim.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s demolition of the council housing which was joined to her property. She says her insurance premiums are higher now the property is semi-detached. The Ombudsman should cannot investigate this complaint. This is because the complaint concerns the management of social housing and this is a private matter between Ms X and the Council’s landlord service.

Summary: The Council investigated Mr X’s complaints of disrepair at the property he rented and there is no evidence of fault in how it reached its decision not to take formal action against the landlord. However, the Council is at fault as it did not pursue some of Mr X’s complaints with the landlord and it delayed in responding to Mr X’s complaint but these faults did not cause significant injustice to Mr X.

Summary: The Ombudsman found fault by the Council on Ms L’s complaint about the way it dealt with her application to join the housing register. It failed to explore information she provided or approach health professionals. The allocation policy makes no mention of general discretion when considering a failure to meet its 10-year residency requirement. It failed to consider exercising discretion following her application and appeal submissions. The agreed action remedies the avoidable injustice caused.

Summary: Miss D complains about the pressure she felt under to accept an offer of accommodation from the Council. She later had to cancel the tenancy and this has put her into rent arrears. The Ombudsman finds no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Miss X complains about the Council’s handling of her homeless application. Miss X complains the Council did not process her application when she applied in February 2017, closed her application without telling her, and failed to update her on the progress of her application. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for its handling of Miss X’s homelessness application and complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay Miss X a financial remedy.

Summary: The Council left Ms B and her teenage son in unsuitable accommodation for three years. This impacted on Ms B’s son’s ability to study, meant the family had no privacy as were sharing one room, and had a detrimental affect on their mental health and wellbeing. The Council will apologise, pay £7400, and review its procedures to prevent future problems.

Summary: The Ombudsman found fault by the Council on Mr K’s complaint about the way it investigated his tenant’s report of harassment. Its record keeping was poor, and it failed to deal with his complaints according to its complaint’s procedure. The agreed action remedies the avoidable injustice caused.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the way a housing company, acting on behalf of the Council, treated him when he was homeless. This is because there is insufficient evidence the injustice Mr B has described is a result of fault in the housing allocation process and it was not unreasonable to expect Mr B to seek a review and then go to the county court if he wished to challenge the suitability of the property offered to him.

Summary: Ms B complains about the Council’s decision to exclude her from its housing list. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and we cannot obtain the outcome Ms B seeks.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council keeping him and his home under constant surveillance. 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 Mr X’s complaint. It is outside his legal remit as it relates to the Council’s management of its social housing stock.

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s failure to evict its tenant from a neighbouring council owned property for noise nuisance. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because the Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints about social housing tenancy matters. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council’s environmental health team to warrant an investigation.

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.