Summary: Mrs X complained the Council asked her to accept a criminal caution for not complying with the conditions of an Abatement Notice the Council issued under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. I have discontinued my investigation because Mrs X had a right of appeal against conditions of the notice and legal proceedings remain ongoing.

Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council handled his housing applications and the delay in providing him a decision. Mr X says this caused him uncertainty as he continued to live in unsuitable accommodation. From the evidence provided, the Ombudsman finds fault with the Council and has made recommendations to remedy the injustice caused which the Council has agreed to.

Summary: The Council was at fault, because it did not make the correct payments for two properties it was leasing, and the complainant was put to unnecessary time and trouble in resolving the matter. The Council has now paid the correct amounts and offered a financial remedy to reflect the complainant’s time and trouble, but has agreed to increase its offer marginally upon recommendation from the Ombudsman.

Summary: The Ombudsman found no fault by the Council on Mr and Mrs K’s complaint about the way it acted following a report about the condition of the flat they let. The Council did not act more favourably towards the tenant, nor supported him to avoid getting evicted. Most of the remainder of their complaint is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction as they exercised their right of appeal to a tribunal.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about the suitability of accommodation the Council offered to discharge its homelessness duty. It is reasonable to expect Ms B to have used her right of appeal to the county court on a point of law.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council awarded her family the wrong priority band for its housing register. We should not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s failure to give sufficient priority to 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 L complained a Council housing officer shared his confidential information with someone making a complaint against him. He also complained about the housing officer’s behaviour for 18 months. The Ombudsman cannot consider Mr L’s complaint as both matters related to an issue considered in court.

Summary: The Ombudsman found no fault on Mr Y’s complaint of the Council failing to exercise discretion and waive the repayment of the housing assistance grant it gave his late mother in 2006. The Council correctly decided the grant was repayable. It also considered his challenges to its decision.

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of her housing application. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for its handling of her homeless application. We also find fault with the Council for failing to consider the suitability of interim accommodation offered to Ms X. The Council has agreed to pay a financial payment.

Summary: Mr C complained the Council unreasonably refused to accept his daughter as part of his household for his homelessness and housing register applications and did not properly assess his priority. Mr C says he was living in overcrowded conditions which caused both him and his family distress. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s handing of her housing applications. The Ombudsman will not investigate her complaint because she has accepted an offer of permanent accommodation. This has remedied any potential injustice to her.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about a refund to the complainant’s rent account. This is because the Ombudsman has no power to investigate a council when it is acting as a landlord.