Summary: The complainant, Mr X complained the Council failed to provide suitable temporary accommodation or decide if it owed him a housing duty within a reasonable time. Mr X says this left him in unsuitable accommodation for much longer than it should. The Council says it reviewed suitability and found the accommodation suitable for Mr X. We found the Council acted with fault and it has agreed a remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Ms X’s homeless application and her housing priority. It was reasonable for Ms X to seek a remedy by appealing to the courts on a point of law.

Summary: The Council was at fault because it did not review the suitability of Mr & Mrs X’s bed and breakfast accommodation and consider moving them to self-contained temporary accommodation. It also took far too long to make a decision on their request for a review of their bedroom needs for their Homemove social housing application. The Council has agreed to provide a suitable remedy for the injustice caused by these faults.

Summary: There is no fault in the Council’s decision to place Mr X in housing band C. There is no evidence to support a move to a higher priority band from the information supplied to the Council. This complaint is not upheld.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the housing register because there is insufficient evidence of injustice and because we cannot investigate Housing Associations.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the way the Council responded to the complainant’s complaints about his neighbour who is a Council tenant. This is because we cannot investigate a council when it is acting as a landlord.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council had dealt with the complainant’s housing application. That is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about Japanese Knotweed spreading to the complainant’s property from the neighbouring Council owned property. This is because we have no power to investigate a council when it is acting as a landlord.

Summary: Miss X complains about the Council’s actions in relation to housing disrepair issues she reported. She says the Council took no action against her landlord to resolve the disrepair. She also complains about comments made by a Council officer who referred to her as a serial complainant. We find some fault with the Council’s actions. We have made recommendations.

Summary: We have stopped investigating Mr and Mrs B’s complaint about the Council’s decision to remove them from its housing register. This is because Mr and Mrs B have applied to the Court to judicially review the Council’s decision. The complaint is therefore outside of our jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council might offer private sector accommodation to the complainant. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

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

Summary: The Council was at fault for the way it dealt with Mr X’s housing application. The Council delayed in referring Mr X to an Occupational Therapist, delayed in reviewing Mr X’s medical priority and request for an additional bedroom and was at fault for the way it reached its decision on Mr X’s medical priority. As a result, it took the Council much longer to provide Mr X with a decision on his housing application and he cannot be sure the Council came to the correct decision about his medical priority. To remedy the injustice caused the Council agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mr X and review how it carries out Medical Assessments.

Summary: We 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.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to properly assess her need for care or meet her needs. Ms X also complained the Council delayed referring her homelessness application to other local authorities. The Council was not at fault regarding referring her homelessness application to other authorities. It was at fault for reducing Ms X’s care package without reviewing her care plan and delay in allocating her a social worker. This caused Ms X avoidable distress. The Council will apologise and remind its staff they must carry out a review before reducing someone’s care package.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that the complainant cannot join the housing register. This is because the problem has been resolved.

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

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s banding on the housing register. This is because the Council has moved the complainant’s application into a higher band.