New housing complaint decisions

A weekly update on housing complaint decisions

This will be our last bulletin for a while...

This will be the last weekly bulletin for a while because we paused our investigations at the end of March to protect the capacity of councils and care providers to respond to the Covid-19 crisis.

We are now accepting new complaints and have resumed paused investigations. But because there is a gap between us completing and publishing cases, there are no new cases being published at the moment. We will issue these bulletins again when new cases are being published.

Please note: our decisions are published three months after they are issued to councils, care providers and the person who has made the complaint. The cases below reflect the caselaw and guidance available at the time of issue and the individual circumstances of each case.

 

London Borough of Croydon (18 009 203)

Summary: There was no fault by the Council in the way it dealt with Miss B’s homeless application or her concerns about the condition of her accommodation.
Broxbourne Borough Council (19 018 672)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms Q’s complaint about the actions of the Council’s Environmental Health Team. This is because we are unlikely to find fault. And the Housing Ombudsman Service is better placed to consider the complaint.
Bristol City Council (19 018 982)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s response to matters concerning his eviction from privately rented accommodation in 2016. This is because the substantive matter happened too long ago to be investigated now.
Birmingham City Council (19 020 397)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about the Council’s assessment of her housing application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant investigation.
Uttlesford District Council (19 012 352)

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council compulsory purchasing a property which he owns. He also complained about its refusal to award him a council tax exemption and discount. The Ombudsman should not exercise his discretion to investigate this complaint. This is because Mr X has appealed to a government minister about the compulsory purchase order and he has exercised his right to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal about the council tax matters.
Slough Borough Council (19 018 695)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that the complainant cannot join the housing register. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
Epping Forest District Council (19 019 718)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that the complainant cannot join the housing register because she does not meet the residency rules. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
Birmingham City Council (19 005 833)

Summary: Mrs Y complains the Council was at fault in the way it considered her housing application and awarded her banding priority. The Ombudsman finds the Council was not at fault in the way it allocated Mrs Y her housing banding. He does find the Council was at fault as it delayed in considering Mrs Y’s review request. The Council has already apologised to Mrs Y for the delay which is suitable action for it to take. So, the Ombudsman has completed his investigation.
Wycombe District Council (19 019 386)

Summary: The complaint is about the Council reclaiming a ‘right to buy’ discount when Mrs X sold her home. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because Mrs X can go to court.
London Borough of Newham (19 010 338)

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council suspended his housing register application after seven years of bidding for housing, when he had reached the top of the list and would otherwise have been offered accommodation. He says the Council would not accept the evidence he says proves a local connection to the area. He says he should have been able to take up the Council’s offer of accommodation in 2018 but he is now stuck in a hostel outside the borough. The Ombudsman does not find the Council at fault.
Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (19 019 083)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s aborted purchase of her former council property. This is because we are satisfied with the Council’s actions to remedy the complaint.
London Borough of Ealing (19 019 400)

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s actions against him when it decided the eviction of his private tenant was illegal. We will not investigate this complaint, because it is unlikely we would find the Council at fault.
Swindon Borough Council (19 018 848)

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about £450 the complainant was charged for repairs for temporary accommodation he lived until 2017. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because it is a late complaint.
Brentwood Borough Council (19 019 047)

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Ms B’s complaint that following an urgent occupational therapist’s recommendation for adaptations to Ms C’s home, the Council refused to carry out the work. This is because the complaint is about the Council’s management of its social housing.