Summary: Mr C complained about the way the Council responded when he became homeless. We did not find fault with the way the Council handled Mr C’s homelessness application. We found some fault with the way the Council handled Mr C’s complaint and restricted his contact. We also found fault with the Council for failing to consider its duty under the Equality Act 2010. Mr C did not suffer a significant injustice from the fault.

Summary: Mr B complains the Council has charged him a high rent for his social housing tenancy. He also complains it is a flexible tenancy for five years rather than a permanent secure tenancy, and the property is not suitable. He says the Council should not have declined his appeal on the grounds of it being late. The Ombudsman finds fault in how the Council considered whether to offer a secure or flexible tenancy. However, the Council has already remedied this issue. We do not find fault in how the Council considered its discretion to hear a late appeal Mr B made.

Summary: Ms X alleges defective repair works commissioned by the Council led to damp and mould problems in her home. The Ombudsman could not conclude the works caused the damp and mould problems in Ms X’s home. However, there were defects in the repair works which required remedial action by the Council. The Council agreed a financial remedy to reflect the time and trouble Ms X was put to in pursuit of the matter.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Ms X’s housing band priority. This is because the Council has now awarded Ms X the priority band she was seeking.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Miss X’s housing application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: Ms B complained that the Council placed her in accommodation which was damp and its response to her concerns was inadequate. She said the damp and mould was affecting her health and that of her son. The Ombudsman found no fault on the Council’s part.

Summary: The Council’s delay handling Mr X’s request for an assessment of his mobility category is fault. The Council also failed to tell Mr X about his statutory right to ask for a review of its decision that his temporary accommodation is suitable. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay Mr X £500, begin a new medical assessment and allow Mr X to ask for a suitability review.

Summary: Mr X complains about how the Council dealt with his housing and homeless case. The Council was at fault for failing to decide whether Mr X was threatened with homelessness in a timely manner and whether it owed him a prevention duty. The Council was also at fault for its poor record keeping and poor communication with Mr X. As a result, the Council’s failings caused Mr X distress, uncertainty, inconvenience and financial loss. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council is failing to help the complainant with her housing. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: A housing applicant complained about the Council’s decision not to award him Band 1 priority for rehousing due to his sons’ special needs. But we do not have grounds to investigate this matter because there is no sign of fault by the Council in its assessment of the application.

Summary: Ms X complains that the Council’s remedy for injustice caused as a result of its delay in delay in dealing with her application for medical points is not appropriate. The Council’s remedy of a direct offer is appropriate and proportionate. However, the Council is at fault as its remedy does not acknowledge the distress caused to Ms X. The Council has agreed to make a payment of £150 to Ms X to acknowledge the distress caused to her.

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint which was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Ms X could not have complained to us sooner about advice concerning her housing application.

Summary: the Council was at fault because it took far too long to deal with a request for a review of Mr X’s priority band and bedroom need for his Housing Register application. The delay caused frustration and uncertainty. We did not find fault with the decision to confirm his Band B medical priority. The Council has accepted our recommendations for a suitable remedy.

Summary: we upheld part of Miss X’s complaint about the way the Council assessed her Housing Register application. But we did not find fault in the way the Council made the decision not to award Band 1 priority on medical grounds.

Summary: The Council was at fault for not taking a homeless application from Mr X or providing him with help to try and secure accommodation. As a result Mr X did not receive any assistance to help relieve his homelessness. The Council has agreed remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: We shall not investigate Ms X’s complaint about not having higher priority for rehousing. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council affecting Ms X’s priority.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to end its homelessness duty to the complainant. This is because there were appeal rights that the complainant could have used.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about his housing application. This is because his application has not been determined and we would not be able to establish any alleged injustice

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about lack of progress with Miss X’s application to buy her Council home. This is because it would be reasonable to expect Miss X to go to court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council unreasonable decided that the complainant was intentionally homeless. This is because the Council will complete the review of its decision in the coming days and the complainant can then challenge the Council’s decision in court.

Summary: Miss B complained the Council delayed progressing her homelessness application, failed to provide suitable accommodation and did not award her the correct housing priority. Miss B said this left her and her daughter in unsuitable accommodation and prevented her from joining the housing register. The Council failed to meet its duties under the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice to Miss B.

Summary: Miss B complains the Council did not deal properly with a disrepair problem. The Council is at fault because it delayed taking action to resolve Miss B’s problems and did not take account of two complaint letters. Miss B lived without a working boiler for over a year. The Council has agreed to pay Miss B £500 for avoidable distress and review how it handles communications.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about matters relating to the state of Mr X’s leased property when it was returned to him by the Council. This is because Mr X can pursue his claim for increased compensation from the Council through the courts.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council treated the complainant highly unfairly and unfavourably. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its review decision on her housing register application.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council offered a permanent home to the complainant. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because there were appeal rights the complainant could have used.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Miss X’s housing application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of any significant injustice remaining which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to appropriately provide for the complainant’s housing needs and treated her unfairly. This is because the first part of the complaint is late and in the remaining part it is unlikely we would find the Council to be at fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the condition of temporary accommodation. This is because we are satisfied with the actions the Council has taken and proposes to take.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Mr X’s housing application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: A man complained about the way the Council assessed his housing register application and its failure to rehouse his family despite their serious overcrowding. However we do not have reason to investigate this complaint because there is no sign of fault by the Council which has caused the man a significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that that a council officer tarnished the complainant’s character. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We shall not investigate Mr X’s complaint about homelessness matters. It would have been reasonable for Mr X to use his court appeal right when the Council ended its homelessness duty. Other parts of his complaint are not significant enough in themselves to investigate.

Summary: The Council’s failure to complete a statutory review of the suitability of Miss X’s temporary accommodation is fault. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay Miss X £150, and complete the statutory review.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with the complainant’s homelessness application. This is because it was not unreasonable to expect him to use his right of appeal to the county court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about missing property following an eviction in 2018. This is because the events happened too long ago, and I see no reason why the complainant could not have complained sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Mr X’s housing application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that Miss X’s homeless accommodation is suitable for her family. This is because the Council has agreed to carry out a fresh review of the suitability of her accommodation and there is nothing further we could achieve.