Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not take reasonable steps to protect her belongings when she became homeless in 2015. She says because of this she had to pay for private storage and went into debt. The Council did not properly consider its duty or advise Ms X of options in 2015. It took until Ms X’s complaint in 2016 to properly advise. To remedy injustice caused by this fault it has agreed to calculate and pay for Ms X’s storage space costs between July 2015 until August 2016. It will calculate this having regard to the floor space Ms X rented from the storage firm, using its average cost of storage funding as a basis. It will also pay her £150 for time and trouble, and develop advice for people facing homelessness on their options.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council has not properly considered her housing priority. There is no fault in how the Council made its decision concerning Miss X’s housing priority or in how it has dealt with her bids for properties.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council delayed in offering alternative housing which she required on personal safety grounds. While it could be argued it took longer than it should have for Ms X to move to a new property, this is not due to fault by the Council. Ms X’s actions, in requesting consideration of a move to a three bedroom property was the reason for it taking longer.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with concerns about the complainant’s interim accommodation. This is because it is unlikely he will find fault by the Council.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s refusal to add her brother to her council tenancy. She also complained about disrepair and asbestos in her home since 2014. The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint. This is because the complaint concerns tenancy matters involving a social housing landlord and is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary: Miss X complained about delay in the Council’s response to her appeal against an assessment of her housing application. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to carry out three suitability review requests and notify him of the decision. The evidence shows the carried out two reviews. One decision was sent to Mr X’s solicitors and the other decision was sent but not received. There failure to complete one review and delays in respect of the other two are fault. The evidence does not support Mr X’s claim that he was unable to bid because of the fault in these cases.

Summary: Miss D complains the Council placed her in unsuitable interim accommodation, delayed dealing with her homelessness application, and failed to offer her suitable temporary accommodation. The Ombudsman has found fault. The Council had already agreed to make Miss D a direct offer of accommodation.

Summary: A woman complained that the Council had unreasonably decided she was intentionally homeless and had failed to help her family with housing despite their difficult circumstances. But the Ombudsman will not investigate this matter. This is because the woman has statutory review and appeal rights she can use to challenge the Council’s decision, and there is no sign of other fault in the way it has dealt with her housing case.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain the Council poorly handled their application to move house when they were suffering alleged anti-social behaviour from their neighbours. We do not find the Council at fault.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about the suitability of her temporary accommodation. This is because it would be reasonable to expect her to ask for an out of time review of the suitability of her accommodation and to go to court if the Council does not resolve any compensation claim to her satisfaction.

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with his request to be rehoused to a larger property. The Ombudsman has found the Council to be at fault because it did not properly consider his request for additional priority on medical and other grounds. It failed to consider whether Mr X was owed any duty under the homelessness legislation. It also took too long to deal with his complaint about this. These faults caused both frustration and uncertainty. To remedy this injustice, The Council has agreed with the Ombudsman’s recommendation to apologise, make a payment to Mr X, reconsider his application properly and review its allocations policy.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council does not have a Tenancy Relations Officer and has failed to protect the complainant from harassment from his landlord. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidenced of injustice.

Summary: Mr B complains the council did not assess his priority for housing correctly. Mr B says the Council did not award him enough harassment and violence priority points. The Ombudsman has found fault with the Council causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy this injustice.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s failure to offer her a social housing home since she first applied for housing in 2006. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: The Council took sufficient action to assist Mr X in relieving his homelessness. The Council is at fault as it placed Mr X in a room which had not been cleaned when it provided emergency accommodation. But this did not cause significant injustice to Mr X and there is no evidence to show the emergency accommodation overall was unsuitable.

Summary: Miss C complains about the Council’s decision not to prosecute her landlord for illegal eviction and the way it conducted its investigation. She also complains about the Council response to protect her property. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council attempted to place her and her young child into unsuitable temporary accommodation and failed to consider her status as a Council employee when she applied for housing assistance. There was no fault in the way the Council dealt with her housing needs.

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s decision to no longer support rehousing a refugee family through the Syrian Vulnerable Person Resettlement Scheme (SVPRS). Ms X says the Council inspected a property she had found and agreed it was suitable. She said the Council later told her it did not have the resources to commit to settle a family in the property Ms X had bought. The Ombudsman has discontinued his investigation. This is because the matter is still ongoing.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that the complainant cannot join the housing register because he does not have a local connection. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr Q’s complaint about the Council’s alleged delay in providing the information he needed to remortgage his property. This is because he has been to court.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s refusal to allow him to apply to the housing register. 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 complains about delay by the Council in ensuring a derelict property near his home was improved and that an officer lied about what took place when they visited Mr X. The Ombudsman will not investigate as it is unlikely any investigation will lead to a different outcome.