Summary: Ms X complains the Council delayed in carrying out an occupational therapy housing assessment for reviews of her medical priority. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council carried out its reviews of Ms X’s medical priority.

Summary: There was fault by the Council as it failed to place Miss X on the direct offer housing list. Miss X has not missed offers of housing, but her application has now been placed on the direct offer list and backdated to when police advice was received.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s liability for damage caused by flooding following heating installation improvement work. It is reasonable for Mr X to seek a remedy from insurers or the courts if no liability is accepted.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision Mr X did not qualify for homelessness assistance. Mr X could reasonably have used his right to go to court.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide interim accommodation between July and September 2020 after she made a homeless application. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision as it had no reason to believe that Ms X was in priority need.

Summary: Mr Y complains on behalf of Mr X about the way the Council dealt with his homelessness and housing applications. On the evidence seen so far, we find the Council was at fault in that it delayed in reaching a decision on whether it owed Mr X the main housing duty. It also failed to accept review requests from Mr X in relation to the suitability of his temporary accommodation and its decision on medical priority. We have recommended a remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: The Council accepted it was at fault for a delay in moving Ms X to alternative accommodation after she reported an assault by her former partner, for not properly considering whether the alternative accommodation was suitable, and a failure to secure that property following a break-in. It apologised and made a payment to remedy the distress and anxiety caused. The payment was not sufficient to remedy the injustice and the Council will pay Ms X a further £3262. It has already made changes to its processes to prevent a recurrence of the fault.

Summary: The Council was at fault for how it advertised Ms B’s property when she applied for a tenancy under the Council’s social housing scheme. It incorrectly said the property had a driveway. This has caused Ms B unexpected inconvenience when parking. The Council has agreed to make a symbolic payment of £150 to recognise her injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mrs X’s homeless application and complaint. This is because an investigation would not lead to a different outcome. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing medical priority for Miss X’s housing application. The evidence suggests the Council properly reached its decision and if there was any delay, that did not in itself cause significant injustice

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to give her housing application the correct priority and failed to make reasonable adjustments for disabilities that family members had. We found the Council’s decisions on housing priority were in accordance with its policy, however, because the Council was not proactive in seeking suitable temporary accommodation for the family, they had to remain in their existing property until they were evicted. We recommended a remedy for the additional distress the Council’s fault caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to apply its sensitive lettings policy to a property. The Council has now agreed a suitable remedy.

Summary: A woman complained that the Council did not follow proper procedures in dealing with her homelessness case. But we will not investigate this matter. This is mainly because the woman had separate review and appeal rights she could have used to challenge the Council’s decision to end its housing duty in her case, and there is no other sign of fault by the Council which has caused her a significant injustice.

Summary: The Council was at fault because it used an out-of-date definition when it decided Mr X did not have priority need for accommodation. It also failed to make reasonable adjustments for Mr X’s disability. The Council is not at fault for how it coordinated with children's services. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a new decision about priority need, pay Mr X £500, and act to improve its services.

Summary: Miss C complained the Council failed to resolve the billing issues for her interim accommodation with the housing provider. She also says the Council delayed providing her with a final decision letter on her homelessness application. We find the Council was at fault as it should have been more proactive in resolving the billing issues and it significantly delayed providing Miss C with a decision on her homelessness application. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with a woman’s homelessness case. This is because the woman has statutory review and potential court appeal rights she can use to dispute the Council’s decision that it does not owe her a housing duty. In addition, there is no sign of fault concerning its handling of other matters in her case.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the suitability of the Council’s offer of a management transfer to Ms X. This is because we have no jurisdiction to investigate discretionary transfer applications outside Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Miss X’s wish to move home. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

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

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has not provided the complainant with accommodation. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and we could not achieve the outcome the complainant would like.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to allow Mr X to return to the housing register after he accepted s social housing offer. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.