Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council dealt with his homelessness application in 2020 and his resulting complaint about this.

Summary: Mr C complained about the Council’s decisions not to include his daughter in his housing register application and refusal to award him medical priority. We found no fault in the process the Council followed, we cannot therefore criticise the merits of its decisions.

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

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of disrepair and an infestation at Mr X’s home. The law prevents us looking into the management of social housing.

Summary: There was fault in the way the Council decided not to provide Miss B with interim accommodation when she told the Council she was homeless. The Council also failed to respond to Miss B’s correspondence and gave her incorrect information about her homelessness application. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Miss B and to take action to prevent similar failings in future.

Summary: Miss B complained the Council did not rehouse her and her child when they were threatened with eviction and did not provide suitable accommodation when they became homeless. Miss B said this caused her stress and anxiety. The Council was at fault for delays accepting the prevention, relief, and main housing duties; writing and sharing Miss B’s personal housing plan; offering her interim accommodation; and updating her. These delays raised Miss B’s expectations, caused distress and uncertainty, and led to lost opportunities. The Council will make a financial payment to remedy the injustice caused to Miss B and make service improvements.

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of her housing application and priority. The Council was responsible for significant delays in considering Miss X’s medical needs. The Council agreed to apologise and provide a financial remedy. The Council has also now rehomed Miss X.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council treated his family with bias and did not fairly consider his housing application from 2019 to 2022. The Council failed to award the family emergency priority for housing allocation for 9 months. The Council also failed to properly consider Mr X’s appeal against its decision to remove his emergency priority banding. The Council agreed to pay Mr X £1350 pounds to recognise the distress caused to him and his wife by remaining in a property that was a risk to their daughter’s life. It agreed to offer them the next available suitable property. The Council will also reconsider its decision on Mr X’s appeal and carry out staff training.

Summary: Ms X complains about how the Council handled her homelessness and housing applications when she fled domestic abuse. Ms X complains the Councils actions caused further distress and uncertainty. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for how it communicated with Ms X about her applications. The Ombudsman also finds fault with the Council for how it communicated about personal data, medical assessments and for the Councils complaint handling. The Council has agreed to pay a financial remedy and make The service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s alleged failure to consider Miss X’s child’s medical need when she applied to be placed on its housing register. This is because we would be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council unfairly treated a pensioner as Mr X is not personally affected by this to a degree that would warrant our involvement. The complaint is also likely to be outside of our legal remit.

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s failure to provide suitable temporary accommodation since 2019. We have not found the Council to be at fault. Miss X did not request a suitability review until late 2021, and so we are unable to investigate what happened before she did so. We have not found fault with the Council’s handing of this request.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his housing applications and banding review requests between 2021 and 2022. The Council was not at fault. It considered Mr X’s banding review request in line with its policy when it decided not to award him gold banding. Mr X did not meet the relevant criteria under the local letting plan for properties he submitted bids for during that period.

Summary: There was delay in offering Mr X suitable interim housing after he turned down offers from the Council. The fault did not cause the injustice claimed by Mr X (homelessness), as it was Mr X’s decision to refuse the initial offer of interim accommodation. There was also delay making the decision on whether he was owed the main housing duty, which the Council has already remedied when it considered Mr X’s official complaint.

Summary: Miss X complains that the Council did not properly consider her requests for higher health and wellbeing priority. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council considered Miss X’s health and wellbeing priority in August and October 2022.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s alleged failure to consider Miss X’s medical needs when it denied her housing review request. This is because the Ombudsman would be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council’s action regarding disrepair at a neighbouring private house. This complaint 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. We will not investigate his complaint about statutory nuisance as there is insufficient evidence of fault.