Summary: Mr C complained the Council delayed completing on his right to buy application. We find the Council was at fault for its delays in dealing with Mr C’s right to buy application. The Council has agreed to our recommendation to address the injustice caused to Mr C by paying him the equivalent of five months’ rent.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council will not register the complainant for a two bedroom property on the housing register. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr B complains that the Council refused to reimburse him for loss of rent and damage to his property under its Deposit Bond Scheme. Although the Council has now agreed to pay Mr B £450 after receipt of new information, the Ombudsman has found no fault in the way the Council decided that Mr B had not previously provided enough information to compensate him under the scheme. There was delay in responding to his complaint, but the Ombudsman considers the apology already provided sufficient remedy for any injustice that this has caused Mr B.

Summary: Mr D complains the Council has incorrectly assessed his housing priority. The Ombudsman has found evidence of fault. He has completed the investigation because the Council has accepted fault and offered a remedy.

Summary: Miss Y complains about the way the Council handled her housing application and its decision about the number of bedrooms to which she is entitled. She says the Council failed to consider the information she provided properly and caused delays. The Ombudsman has found fault by the Council causing injustice. It has agreed to remedy this by apologising to Miss Y, carrying out a fresh review of its decision about her bedroom entitlement, and paying her £1,000 to reflect her avoidable time and trouble, and inconvenience of being in unsuitable accommodation.

Summary: Ms B complains that the Council delayed in dealing with her purchase of her Council flat under the right to buy scheme. The Ombudsman finds the Council delayed in dealing with the process, failed to communicate properly with Ms B and failed to deduct an agreed amount from the purchase price on completion. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms B and make a payment to her in recognition of the distress and inconvenience she suffered.

Summary: Miss B complains about how long she has been living in temporary accommodation and the condition of it. There was fault by the Council in its response to the disrepair issues. The Council will apologise and make a payment to Miss B.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of her housing register application. The Council was not at fault.

Summary: Ms C complains about the way the Council dealt with her application for rehousing on medical grounds. Ms C says she is not suitably housed which has exacerbated her health problems and she cannot leave the house. We have found some delay and poor communication by the Council but consider the action it has already taken of providing a full explanation and apology is enough to provide a suitable remedy.

Summary: Mrs X complains of fault with the Council’s handling of medical information she provided which led to her missing out on the opportunity to move to suitable permanent accommodation. There was fault by the Council. It agreed to remedy the injustice through a direct offer of accommodation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council placed his family in unsuitable temporary accommodation when they were homeless. He had the right to appeal to the county court about this, and it was reasonable for him to do so.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s actions after she refused the offer of a property and the Council ended its homelessness duty. The Council was not at fault when it ended its homeless duty to Miss X or in the information it provided about her right of review. It was at fault when it failed to review Miss X’s banding after she refused a housing offer. It has now reviewed Miss X’s banding.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of housing management issues made on behalf of residents who occupy their homes as leaseholders. This is because the complaint falls outside our jurisdiction and should be made to the Housing Ombudsman.

Summary: Miss X complains that the Council did not adequately help her when she became homeless and did not properly respond to her complaint. She says she was homeless for six weeks and lost sentimental belongings when she was illegally evicted. She says this caused unnecessary distress, upset, and cost her time and trouble. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council which caused Miss X injustice. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the Council has apologised to Miss X and made a payment to reflect the injustice. The Ombudsman is also satisfied with the action the Council has taken to improve its homelessness service.

Summary: The complainant says the Council failed to help him find accommodation when homeless and its delay caused him to lose the home he applied for. The Council says it acted in line with its duty and helped secure accommodation. The Ombudsman finds the Council acted without fault in offering help but that it acted with fault in not issuing a second Personalised Housing Plan.

Summary: The Ombudsman has completed our investigation. The Council failed to take a homeless application from Mr X and delayed activating his housing application. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council should apologise, pay Mr X £250, and take action to improve its service.

Summary: the complainant says the Council did not comply with the recommendations of its Complaints Panel or provide advice, support, or accommodation it owed him as a vulnerable person leaving care. The Council says it carried out the work agreed and provided a personal assistant. The Ombudsman finds the Council acted without fault in providing for Mr X’s needs as a care leaver. However, the Ombudsman finds the Council at fault for taking too long to decide it owed a housing duty.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint about the Council’s delay in telling her she was not able to bid for social housing and about delay in the Council’s complaint process. This is because the injustice she has suffered is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that the complainant does not qualify for band one on the housing register. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Miss B complains the Council wrongly evicted her, without notice, from the temporary accommodation where she was living with her two children. She said the Council then would not provide her with any assistance to find alternative accommodation even though she was pregnant. She said the loss of the accommodation caused considerable distress to her and her daughters. There was fault which caused injustice to Miss B. The Council will apologise and make a payment to her for the injustice caused.

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

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Ms Y’s housing conditions. This is because part of the complaint is late and it is unlikely we would find the Council at fault.

Summary: Mr X complained about a lack of support from the Council when he was homeless during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Council was not at fault.

Summary: There is fault by the Council because it did not send Ms X a self-assessment form for her to complete when she asked for a move on medical grounds. This caused no injustice, because Ms X later received the form and did not respond. There was a failure to keep written records of two meetings, which is fault which caused no injustice. As there is no injustice to Ms X, we made no recommendations for the Council.