Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council dealt with her application for homeless assistance. The Council was at fault. It failed to fully assess Mrs X’s housing needs, delayed offering her interim accommodation, delayed making a decision on her homeless application and delayed advising her of her right of review of the suitability of the temporary accommodation. These faults caused Mrs X and her family distress, frustration and inconvenience. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Mrs X to remedy the injustice caused. It has also agreed to remind staff of the need to complete a full assessment of housing needs and to confirm decisions in writing at the earliest opportunity.

Summary: There was no evidence of fault by the Council. The Council gave Mr B details of the visit he requested and there is no evidence to support his view that he was told he would get a report to assist him with a claim against his landlord or support with obtaining new housing.

Summary: Ms B complains about the Council’s handling of her mother’s housing applications. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because Ms B did not complain within 12 months of knowing of the events.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council delayed accepting a homelessness duty and failed to provide interim accommodation. He says that he was left without accommodation and had to sofa surf. The Council was at fault for not accepting a homelessness application and making enquiries about his circumstances in April 2019. It was also at fault for failing to carry out an interview because he arrived 10 minutes late and for not arranging another one until a month later. Mr X moved into accommodation 10 months later in February 2010.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr Q’s complaint about the Council’s handling of disrepair in a property he owns and rents out. This is because he had a right of appeal to the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) if he disagreed with the improvement notice the Council served.

Summary: Mr & Mrs X complained the Council failed to identify health and safety hazards and take appropriate enforcement action against their landlord when it inspected their privately rented home. The Council was not at fault.

Summary: The complainant says the Council failed to properly manage her housing application leading to a delay in the offer of a permanent home. The Council accepts fault in managing the applications. The Ombudsman finds the Council acted with fault causing an injustice for which he recommends a remedy.

Summary: Miss X says the Council has placed her in unsuitable temporary accommodation and failed to carry out a review of its suitability. She also says it failed to respond to her complaints about this. The Ombudsman has found fault by the Council. He recommended apologises for the delay in doing so and offered her £250 in recognition of the distress and avoidable time and trouble caused to her. The Council agreed.

Summary: Mr B complained that the Council had refused his application for good tenant status which would have increased his priority for housing. We find fault with the Council’s procedure and the application of that procedure. The Council has agreed to review the procedure and if changes are made, to review Mr B’s application.

Summary: Miss X complains the Council has not done enough to help her find accommodation, and that a housing officer was rude and unhelpful and wrongly discussed her homelessness application with her sister which led to her being forcefully evicted. The documentation shows the Council took sufficient action to assist Miss X with finding accommodation after she became homeless. And there is no evidence a council officer was rude or unhelpful, or that their actions led to Miss X’s eviction.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council did not offer him support when he became homeless. The Council is not at fault.

Summary: Ms B complains that the Council removed her from the housing register because of rent arrears and asked unrealistic things of her to reinstate her on the register. She also complains that the Council placed her on the corporate warning system (CWS) because of her complaints and behaviour. The Ombudsman finds no fault by the Council except that it failed to review information it held about Ms B after 12 months despite agreeing to do so. The Council has now reviewed this information and removed Ms B from the CWS.

Summary: Miss X complains the Council was at fault in the way it responded to her requests to clean pigeon mess from the balcony of a flat she occupied as temporary accommodation. We found fault as the Council delayed in responding to the request and wrongly informed Miss X it was her responsibility when responding to her complaints. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Ms X for the distress caused and to make service improvements, so we are completing our investigation.

Summary: Ms B complains that the Council delayed in carrying out a Housing Health and Safety Rating System inspection of the temporary accommodation it provided her when she was homeless. The Ombudsman finds the Council delayed in completing an inspection which meant Ms B had to live in a property with hazards for longer than necessary. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Ms B in recognition of the injustice she suffered.

Summary: A woman complained that the Council unreasonably refused to accept her request for a review of its decision that she is intentionally homeless, unfairly evicted her from her temporary accommodation, and was going to take too long to review her priority on its Housing Register. But the Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council in the woman’s case.

Summary: there was no fault in the way the Council informed Mr X about decisions about his Housing Register application and his ability to bid for properties through the choice based lettings scheme.

Summary: Mr Y complains on behalf of Ms X that the Council failed to help her when she was threatened with homelessness. The Council is at fault for failing to carry out its homeless duties in line with law and guidance. This caused Ms X unnecessary uncertainty and financial loss. The Council should apologise, pay Ms X £7,605 and take action to improve its service.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about his social housing application. This is because we would not find the Council to be at fault in applying its Housing Allocation Scheme in this case. There is insufficient justification for the Ombudsman to pursue Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s delay.

Summary: Mr X complained about the condition of the Council flat he accepted in 2020 which he says is unsuitable for his family to live in. The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint. This is because it concerns tenancy matters involving a social housing landlord and is outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: Mr X says the Council took too long to accept a main housing duty towards him, leaving him in unsuitable accommodation for 10 months. The Ombudsman has found fault by the Council. In recognition of the injustice caused to Mr X he recommended the Council review its procedures, offers its staff refresher training, writes a letter of apology to Mr X and pays him £3800. The Council agreed.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with a woman’s housing case after it became unsafe for her to stay in her property. This is mainly because we are unlikely to find sufficient evidence of fault to justify a finding against the Council.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council has forced the complainant to live in her car because it provided unsuitable accommodation. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because the complainant could have used her appeal rights.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s housing application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss B’s complaint about part of the Council’s review of its decision on her housing application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its review decision and we could not achieve the outcome Miss B wants.