Summary: Miss X complained about mould and disrepair in her council home and the two-bedroom flat she occupies is too small for her family. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the repair and management of her home by a social housing landlord are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. There is insufficient evidence of fault to investigate her complaint about her banding on the housing waiting list.

Summary: Ms B complains the Council has failed to rehouse her and her child. We found the Council was not at fault for failing to make an offer of housing. It has followed its policy and placed Ms B in its highest housing priority band. It has not made an offer due to the shortage of accommodation.

Summary: Ms B complains about the Council’s handling of her requests to be moved from her current accommodation, where she is experiencing anti-social behaviour by her neighbour. Ms B also complains the Council has failed to consider key evidence about her mental health conditions when reassessing her housing priority. We have seen no evidence of fault in the Council’s handling that would enable us to question the merits of its decision.

Summary: Mr B complains the Council did not respond to his complaint about his supported accommodation. This caused Mr B frustration and put him to time and trouble pursuing his complaint. We found fault with the Council causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy this injustice.

Summary: The Council’s failure to provide Ms X with suitable accommodation is fault. As a result, Ms X and her children have been in unsuitable accommodation for 15 months. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay Ms X £200 a month until it finds her suitable accommodation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that the complainant must pay for a new shower screen in his temporary accommodation. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Miss B complained the Council had not considered properly the priority for her application for rehousing. And that the Council had wrongly said the only way she could bid for a three-bedroom property was if she agreed to the removal of her medical priority. She said the property where she lived was overcrowded and had an adverse impact on all the family but particularly her two children who have extra needs. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice to Miss B. The Council will apologise and make a payment to her.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint that the Council failed to look after her belongings properly when she was homeless. This is because even if we exercised discretion to consider Miss B’s complaint and found fault by the Council, there is not enough evidence for us to safely establish the losses and damage she has described are a result of that fault.

Summary: Ms X complained on behalf of Mrs Y, a private tenant, about the way the Council used its housing enforcement powers to address poor housing conditions in her flat. She also complained about the Council’s handling of Mrs Y’s landlord’s application for a selective licence. There was fault in the conduct of the housing enforcement investigation but that did not cause the injustice claimed by Ms X. There was no fault in the Council’s consideration of the selective licence application.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has broken the law by not providing the complainant with a larger home. This is because there is no worthwhile outcome we could achieve and because part of the complaint is late.

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s failure to deal with her complaints about noise from works in a neighbouring council flat, the installation of CCTV by her neighbours and its conduct of child protection proceedings and a care order which removed her son from her household. We cannot investigate this complaint. This is because it concerns the actions of a social housing landlord. We cannot consider the complaints about contact and custody of her son because this has been the subject of a separate complaint to us previously decided.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint that the Council failed to help her to get adaptations to her home in 2010, failed to award medical priority to her application in 2017 and then failed to backdate the priority banding of her application beyond July 2020. This is because there are not compelling enough reasons for us to exercise discretion to consider the late part of her complaint and there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision in 2020.

Summary: The Council was at fault for delaying in deciding Mr X’s housing application. This meant it took longer to resolve concerns about Mr X’s residency and finalise his bidding arrangements. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and make a payment to recognise the distress, time and trouble he experienced.