Summary: Ms X complains that the Council wrongly assessed that she is not eligible for help to move to more suitable accommodation, and it ignored the medical evidence she provided. She says her poor health means she struggles to access her home. The Ombudsman does not find the Council at fault.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s housing allocations policy and when changes in banding were applied from. 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 about her current living conditions. The Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints about the Council in its role of managing social housing. Further consideration of Ms B’s complaint about being overcrowded is unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Summary: there was fault in the way the Council handled Miss X’s move to new temporary accommodation. There is no evidence that an officer told Miss X she could apply for a Discretionary Housing Payment when she asked for assistance with removal costs. The Council also took too long to deliver a mattress to the property. The Council has agreed to provide a suitable remedy for the injustice caused to Miss X.

Summary: Ms X complains about the way the Council dealt with her housing application and allocated her a housing band. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s assessment of her housing application. She says she has been on the waiting list for over three years and has not received any suitable offers. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council removing her housing transfer application from the housing register and refusing her new application. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because her application was not within the ‘reasonable preference’ category which we can consider. There was no fault in the Council’s decision to refuse her new application and she can ask for a further review.

Summary: Mr B complains about the Council’s consideration of a planning application for the development of a house close to the rear boundary of his property. There was no fault in the Council’s consideration.

Summary: Mr A, an advisor has submitted a complaint on behalf of Mr X about the Council’s refusal to allow Mr X to join the housing register. The information shows a referral must be made for consideration under the supported accommodation move-on criteria to be considered. Mr A has not made a referral and so there is no fault by the Council. Mr A could now make a referral on behalf of Mr X.

Summary: the Council failed to assess the condition of interim accommodation it provided to Miss C when she raised concerns about the state of the property, failed to consider her income when advising her what to pay towards her rent and delayed amending the rent charge and housing benefit award to reflect Miss C’s partner leaving the household. That impacted on Miss C’s finances, caused her to have to live with repair issues for 11 months longer than she should have and led to her going to time and trouble to pursue her complaint. An apology, payment to Miss C and agreement to monitor the progress of the repairs is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: Miss B complained the Council failed to take action on her concerns about the suitability of interim accommodation, withdrew two offers of accommodation, left her with no option but to return to her original property which is unsafe, failed to provide interim accommodation when she re-presented as homeless in 2019 and has taken no action to process her 2019 homeless application. There is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss B’s complaint that the Council allocated an unsuitable property to her and its tenancy sustainment team and its housing service failed to resolve the issues she raised. This is because we cannot investigate complaints about social housing tenancy management and I have decided not to exercise discretion to investigate her late housing allocation complaint.

Summary: The Ombudsman does not have grounds to investigate this complaint that the Council unreasonably ended its homelessness duty in a woman’s case after she refused an offer of accommodation. This is because the woman had a statutory right of appeal she could have used to challenge the Council’s decision and, anyway, there is no sign of fault in the way it dealt with her housing case.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council caused damage to his house when it carried out repairs to the neighbouring property which is Council owned. The Ombudsman cannot investigate as he has no legal remit to investigate the Council’s management of its social housing.

Summary: Mr Y complained the Council failed to properly assess his housing register application. The Council was not at fault in its assessment of Mr Y’s housing register application.

Summary: there was some fault in the way the Council handled Ms X’s move from a bed and breakfast hotel to a hostel. The Council has already apologised to Ms X for its poor communication with her on the day of the move and that provides a suitable remedy. The Council took too long to send Ms X a Personal Housing Plan. However this fault did not cause a delay in dealing with her application for assistance under the Rent Deposit Scheme.