Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr D’s complaint about hazards at his privately rented property and the way the Council has dealt with his complaint. Further consideration of the complaint is unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the outcome of the complainant’s homelessness application. This is because it is not unreasonable to have expected the complainant to have used her statutory right to review and appeal the Council’s homelessness decision.

Summary: Ms X complained about being placed in unsuitable temporary accommodation when she was accepted as homeless by the Council in 2018. The Ombudsman should not exercise his discretion to investigate this complaint. This is because it was reasonable for her to appeal against the suitability of the accommodation at the time.

Summary: The Ombudsman found fault on Ms T’s complaint about the Council’s children’s services failing to properly consider her and her daughter’s needs, or suitability, when providing them with accommodation out of borough. It failed to show this was the only available accommodation. It also failed to show it considered, and kept under review, its suitability because of her daughter’s needs and the 4 hours traveling it takes for her to get to and from school. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Summary: There was fault by the Council. The Council’s guidelines on priority transfers did not explain clearly what the Council’s officers felt was a like for like transfer. The Council also did not clearly document its reasons why it felt Miss B was not at sufficient risk to exercise discretion to go against its policy to speed up her transfer. The injustice to Miss B is minimal, as it is likely the outcome would have been the same and the Council did make her a reasonable offer, which she refused.

Summary: Miss B complains about the Council’s decision to place her daughter, Miss C, in unsuitable housing. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s handling of Miss C’s homelessness application. The merits of the homelessness decision and suitability of the accommodation offered carry appeal rights and it is not unreasonable to expect Miss C to use these to challenge the Council’s decision. The Ombudsman cannot investigate Miss B’s complaint about the Housing Association’s handling of Miss C’s subsequent request to move to another property because these complaints fall within the remit of the Housing Ombudsman Service.

Summary: Mr B complains the Council did not consider properly the medical needs of his son, C, when assessing their banding for the housing register. There was fault in the Council’s consideration of Mr B’s request for medical priority but there was no fault in the way the review was conducted which upheld the original decision.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council told his prospective landlord he intended to claim housing benefit, causing the withdrawal of an offer of a tenancy and embarrassment. He also says it mishandled his request for a review of his housing priority band. The Ombudsman found no fault in the Council’s approach. It did not communicate directly with his landlord and it considered Mr X’s evidence why it should increase his housing band but disagreed it should. There was fault in how the Council explained its rule on not investigating complaints older than 12 months. While this caused Mr X no significant injustice, the Council agreed to the Ombudsman’s recommendation to provide a better explanation to others in future.

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s refusal to give her additional housing priority due to her multiple needs, causing her family to remain longer in unsuitable accommodation. The Ombudsman finds no fault affecting the Council’s decision but finds the Council delayed granting disrepair points. The Ombudsman recommends the Council provides an apology and payment for distress.

Summary: Miss B complains about the Council’s handling of her homelessness application and the provision of accommodation. The Council delayed in deciding Miss B’s homeless application and there was fault in the Council’s communication about her housing situation. The Council will apologise and make a payment to Miss B.

Summary: Ms X complained about conditions in her social rented home and the Council’s failure to give her priority for a transfer. The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint. This is because it concerns the management of tenancies by a social housing landlord and is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not pursue this complaint about the Council not letting Mr B buy his home in 1990. This is because the complaint is late and because Mr B had the right to go to court.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council has not rehoused her family after they spent six years on its housing register, and it has now decided she is not eligible for social housing. We should not investigate this complaint, as it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s Housing and Environmental Health Department but decided to withdraw his complaint.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council placing her in unsuitable temporary accommodation in 2016 and 2017. She also says her banding on the waiting list was changed without explanation in 2019. The Ombudsman should not exercise his discretion to investigate this complaint. This is because it relates to matters she was aware of more than 12 months before she submitted her complaint to us. She had a right of appeal to the courts and it was reasonable for her to pursue this. The decision of 2019 carries a right of review and she can pursue this with the Council.

Summary: Mr B complains that the Council failed to backdate his recent housing application to the date of his original application which was cancelled in 2016 when he did not renew it. The Ombudsman finds no fault on the Council’s part. In any event, it has now backdated Mr B’s application.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to allocate her properties she bid on and then failed to explain why this happened. The Council was not at fault for the way it allocated the properties. It was at fault for the delay in responding to her complaint about this and for failing to properly explain why she was not allocated the properties. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and to pay her £100 to acknowledge the frustration this caused.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the Council’s decision that she is not eligible for its downsizing scheme. This is because we cannot consider complaints about housing transfer applications if they are not made by someone who is in one of the categories of applicants to whom the Council must give reasonable preference.

Summary: Ms B complains the Council has failed to take proper account of her family’s medical needs in determining her priority for permanent accommodation. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint from a Council tenant about the way the Council has dealt with her requests for adaptations to her property to meet the needs of her disabled daughter. This is because the law says we cannot consider complaints about actions councils take in their role as landlords of social housing.