Summary: Mr X complains the Council delayed responding to his request for a review of its decision not to pay solicitor’s costs. He also says the reasons the Council gave were incorrect. He says it has caused financial loss and time and trouble. We consider there is fault by the Council in its decision making, and avoidable delay. We have recommended a remedy.

Summary: We found fault with the way the Council handled Mr X’s housing application. We did not find fault with the way the Council responded to Mr X’s homelessness. The Council offered to review its banding decision. This is a suitable remedy for the injustice to Mr X.

Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council did not agree with her request for a house on medical grounds. She said it was essential for her child’s medical needs. We did not find fault with the Council’s actions and we note that the policy has now changed so Mrs B can bid for houses.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s housing application. This 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: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to compensate Mr X for applying an incorrect date to his housing application. Any investigation would not lead to a different outcome because the Council did not cause Mr X significant injustice. We would also not be able to achieve the outcome he would like.

Summary: A housing association, acting on behalf of the Council, delayed making necessary changes to Ms X’s housing application. This is fault. The Council is also at fault because it failed to keep records in line with its data retention policy. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay Ms X £300, and take action to improve its service.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of an incident at his accommodation in March 2020 when he was assaulted by a neighbour and offered Mr X support. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters so are minded to complete our investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about homelessness and housing matters. The law prevents us considering the management of Mr X’s Council tenancy. Other points are late or concern matters where Mr X could reasonably have used his rights to seek a review of the suitability of accommodation and, if necessary, to go to the county court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to move the complainant’s housing application into a higher priority band. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Ms C complained the Council failed to rehouse her despite her urgent need to move, misunderstood the occupational therapy recommendation, failed to consider her medical evidence, denied offering her a property when it had done so, delayed considering her complaint, failed to properly address the complaint and wrongly amended her bidding date. There was some miscommunication about the occupational therapy recommendation but that did not affect Ms C securing a property and there were issues not addressed in the complaint response. There is no evidence of fault in the rest of the complaint. An apology and payment to Ms C is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: Miss B and Mr C complained the Council delayed investigating disrepair to their private rented property, failed to identify hazards and did not take enforcement action against their landlord. They also complained the Council did not follow its complaint procedure. Miss B and Mr C said this caused them disruption and inconvenience. The Council delayed seeking an update about an electrical safety test report and responding to Miss B and Mr C’s complaint. This caused Miss B and Mr C injustice. The Council will make a financial payment to remedy this.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about what happened to her social housing tenancy. This is because the complaint concerns the Council’s historic management of its social housing and so it lies outside our legal remit.

Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council made its decision not to allow him to join the housing register. The Council has now added Mr X to the housing register and backdated his registration date. We have discontinued our investigation as we are unlikely to achieve anything further.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s failure to act on his request for a review of its decision on his homelessness application from February 2020. 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 Mr X could not have complained to us sooner.

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: We will not investigate this complaint about the handling of Mr X’s housing register application and formal complaint. This is mainly because the Council has taken adequate steps to put right any injustice its faults may have caused. We also cannot achieve what Mr X wants.

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

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s contractor allegedly not returning all of the complainant’s possessions it had put into storage, after his eviction. This is because it is reasonable for him to seek a remedy in the courts.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Mr Y’s housing application. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify further investigation.

Summary: Mr Z complains on behalf of Ms X about how the Council has dealt with her homeless and housing case. As a result, Mr Z says Ms X continued to live in unsuitable accommodation for longer than she should have. There was no evidence of fault in the way the Council handled Ms X’s homeless and housing case.