Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to take appropriate action when she reported damp and mould in her privately rented accommodation. The Council was at fault for not ensuring the landlord carried out repairs and not considering enforcement action when a category 1 hazard was identified. It was also at fault for not making enquiries when Miss X said she was homeless because it was not reasonable for her to continue living there. It should apologise and make a payment to her to reflect the distress caused as a result of living in unsuitable accommodation.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council decided the family needed a property without stairs and delayed allowing her to bid for properties. The Council is at fault for giving too much weight to the medical adviser’s comments and not considering all relevant factors. It agreed to apologise and make a payment to Ms X for the delays caused.

Summary: Miss Y complained the Council failed to properly review whether her temporary accommodation was suitable for her and her family to live in and failed to properly deal with a cockroach infestation within the block of flats in which she lives. There was fault in the Council’s decision-making process. The Council has agreed to apologise, move Miss Y to alternative accommodation as part of an estate regeneration plan and pay her £150 to remedy the uncertainty caused.

Summary: Mr C complains the Council did not deal properly with his housing application. The Council was not at fault.

Summary: The Council was at fault because it placed a wrong address on an appendix to a letter accepting a duty to accommodate a resident. The Council also failed to contact the resident to review his situation. There was no injustice to the resident from these faults. The resident did not contact the Council for 18 months about the homeless application and it would have been reasonable for him to follow up the matter at the time.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council is acting unreasonably by saying he does not qualify for its housing register on residence grounds as it was responsible for him moving out of the Borough in 2016. There is no evidence the Council placed Mr X out of the Borough in 2016.

Summary: The Ombudsman does not have reason to start an investigation of this complaint that the Council had not given a homeless man enough help in finding housing. This is because the man has now been offered suitable accommodation, and it is unlikely we could achieve a better outcome for him than this.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council has not provided the complainant with suitable accommodation. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Dr X’s complaint about problems with anti-social behaviour she says are due to a damaged and inadequate fence close to her home. This is because we have no powers to consider complaints about a council when it is acting as a landlord.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s Environmental Health Team. This is because the complaint is late and there is not enough evidence of fault causing injustice. It is unlikely we could add anything to the Council’s response.

Summary: There was fault when the Council disposed of personal belongings Mr X left in interim accommodation he occupied when he was homeless. This caused a significant injustice to Mr X. The Council has agreed to provide a suitable remedy.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s delay responding to reports of disrepair and an illegal eviction notice. The Council was at fault for the delay in responding to Ms X’s request for a property inspection, and for failing to refer details of the alleged illegal eviction notice to its housing team. This caused Ms X additional avoidable distress, frustration, and time and trouble.

Summary: A housing applicant complained that the Council unreasonably withdrew an offer of accommodation which he wanted, and then offered another property which was not suitable for his family’s needs. But the Ombudsman will not investigate this matter. This is because the applicant had a statutory right of appeal he could have used to challenge the Council’s decision about the suitability of the second property. In addition, there is no sign that any other fault by the Council caused him an injustice to warrant our involvement.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his right to buy application. This is because it is reasonable for Mr X to issue statutory notices of delay or to take the matter to court.

Summary: The complaint is about matters related to a Council-owned property next to Mrs B’s home. The Ombudsman cannot pursue this complaint as he has no power to investigate complaints about the management of social housing.

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council have not properly considered his circumstances in reaching a decision that he is not homeless or threatened with homelessness. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because he can appeal the matter in court.

Summary: Miss X complains about the way the Council has dealt with her homeless application and failure to provide suitable temporary accommodation. Miss X also complains that the Council failed to protect her personal belongings. The Ombudsman finds that the Council delayed making a decision on her homelessness application and failed to review the suitability of the temporary accommodation. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed a remedy to reflect the level of distress caused to Miss X.

Summary: The Council took sufficient action to assist Mr X with finding accommodation after he became homeless. But it is at fault as it delayed in sending Mr X’s personalised housing plan to him, did not notify him of the ending of the relief duty and how he could challenge that decision and delayed in deciding if it owed the main housing duty to him. These faults did not cause significant injustice to Mr X. We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council removing and destroying his van as the Council was acting on behalf of DVLA so the matter is outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: Mr B, a landlord, complains that the Council failed to provide adequate and timely support to himself and his tenant causing him distress, inconvenience and expense. The Ombudsman finds the Council was at fault in that it delayed in providing advice to Mr B but there is no evidence to suggest this affected the outcome. The Council’s apology is a sufficient remedy for the frustration Mr B suffered.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to offer only a two bedroom home. This is because it is unlikely he would find fault by the Council in the way it made its decision.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs Q’s complaint about the Council’s alleged failure to respond to her query about council properties sold under the Right to Buy. This is because the injustice she has suffered is not significant enough to justify an investigation.

Summary: The Ombudsman does not have grounds to investigate this complaint that the Council unreasonably housed a family in private rented accommodation far from their support network. This is because the Council has offered to carry out a fresh review about the suitability of the accommodation.