Summary: The Council wrongly changed Ms X’s housing priority, for which it apologised. However, neither the change of housing priority nor the information the Council provided about waiting times, led Ms X to miss an offer for suitable permanent housing.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not allocate her a property she bid on and has given conflicting information about what type of property she is eligible for. There is no fault in the way the Council handled Mrs X’s housing application or allocated the property concerned. There is fault in the way the Council handled Mrs X’s complaint as it referred her to the wrong Ombudsman scheme.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms B’s complaint the Council has refused her application to join its housing register. Further consideration of the complaint is unlikely to find fault with the way the Council has made its decision.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint the Council will not include his children on his housing application. Further consideration of the complaint is unlikely to find fault with the way the Council has made its decision.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to withhold part of a refund to pay money the complainant owed to the Council. This is because the housing service decided to withhold part of the refund and the Ombudsman cannot investigate a council when it is acting as a landlord.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council’s failure to give their housing application sufficient priority. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms B’s complaint that the Council failed to respond to her claim. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council in this case because it has responded to Ms B’s legal advisor and her claim is a legal matter.

Summary: Miss X complains about the Council’s handling of her housing application. She says the Council has not properly considered her health and safety because it has decided she is suitable for a property within a lifted building. She also complains the Council will not let her bid on three-bedroom properties and does not assign appropriate accessible categories to its properties. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for failing to properly consider whether properties within lifted buildings are suitable for Miss X. However, the fault did not cause any injustice. We do not find fault with the Council for its other actions.

Summary: Mr C complains about how the Council terminated his interim accommodation and how it subsequently managed his housing register application and a subsequent bid for a property. However, there is no evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with any of the matters raised by Mr C.

Summary: Mr C complains about how the Council terminated his interim accommodation and how it subsequently managed his housing register application and a subsequent bid for a property. However, there is no evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with any of the matters raised by Mr C.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not properly assess his application for its housing register and did not give him reasonable preference based on his health needs. We cannot investigate this late complaint. Mr X has not given the Council an opportunity to consider his complaint through its own complaints process. However, in any event, we would be unlikely to find fault and Mr X needs to be reassessed as his circumstances have changed.

Summary: Miss X, a landlord, complained about the Council’s actions relating to her property, which it rented to use as temporary accommodation. We have decided not to investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find that fault by the Council has caused the injustice Miss X has experienced.

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council handled his housing application. The Ombudsman finds the Council was at fault for delay in assessing the housing application, failing to assess medical evidence, failing to take a homeless application and failing to evidence its view that it was reasonable to expect Mr X to continue to occupy his current accommodation. The Council has now offered Mr X accommodation which it considers ends its homeless relief duty to him. It has also agreed to assess Mr X’s medical evidence and pay him £450 to acknowledge the effect of the Council’s initial delay and the uncertainty, frustration and distress caused by its subsequent failures.

Summary: Mrs B complains the Council has asked her to repair or replace a wall at her own cost that the Council considers to be potentially dangerous. Mrs B says the Council should pay half the costs and the Council has not followed the correct legal process. We find the courts are in the best position to decide the matter. So, we have ended our investigation.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his housing application. The Ombudsman has discontinued his investigation. This is because the matter is still ongoing.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint that the Council admitted her right to buy her home in 2016 but subsequently denied it in 2018. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs B is seeking.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council advising a housing applicant to include his name on her housing application form. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s assessment of the application and we cannot consider Mr X’s concerns about his tenancy. This is because it involves a social housing landlord and such bodies are outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s suspension of his Right to Buy his Council home. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. The Council ended Mr X’s status as a secure tenant following a criminal investigation. He has no secure tenant’s rights and this includes the Right to Buy. There is no evidence of fault which the Ombudsman could investigate. We cannot investigate a social housing landlord’s decision to end a tenancy because these bodies are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary: The complainant says the Council failed to properly consider his housing application. The Council says it may have delayed consideration of the complainant’s application by up to two months, but the onus is on the applicant to provide information in support of housing need and priority. Once it had the necessary information the Council says it increased priority to the highest band. The Ombudsman finds the Council acted with fault.

Summary: Miss D complained about the Council’s handling of her Right to Buy application between September 2018 and March 2019. The Council was at fault. Its poor internal communication led to the Council wrongly serving Miss D and her brother Mr E with a notice to quit the property and threaten them with eviction. It then obtained incorrect legal advice from its solicitors which caused it to incorrectly withdraw the Right to Buy application. The Council agreed to pay Miss D and Mr E a total of £500 to recognise the distress, uncertainty and time and trouble the faults caused them.

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of her homelessness application and other related matters. This meant she was homeless for a number of months. The Ombudsman has found the Council to be at fault because it took too long to make its decision about her homelessness and other related matters. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed a remedy to reflect the level of distress caused to Miss X.

Summary: Mrs Z complained on behalf of Ms X that the Council refused to let Ms X carry out building work to her own property, incorrectly carried out a tendering process for the works and was then disorganised in how it subsequently billed her for the costs it incurred. Mrs Z says this has left Ms X with debt she cannot afford. The Council was not at fault.

Summary: there was fault in the way the Council carried out the homelessness prevention duty. Miss X did not become homeless but she suffered uncertainty due to the delay in handling her case and the Council’s poor communication. The Council has agreed to provide a suitable remedy. There was no fault in the Council’s handling of Miss X’s Let to Birmingham and Housing Register applications.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to not give medical priority to the complainant’s housing application. This is because it is unlikely he would find fault by the Council.

Summary: Miss X complained about the way the Council handled her request to transfer to alternative housing because she is in fear of violence from her former partner. The Council is at fault for delays in decision-making and in identifying suitable alternative accommodation for Miss X. It should apologise, pay her £1,300 and make changes to its processes to avoid a repetition of these faults.