Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s management of Mr X’s housing application account. This is because we would be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about matters related to a leasehold property. The law prevents us investigating the substantive matters resulting in the complaint. It would therefore be disproportionate to investigate the Council’s complaint-handling.

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. We have no jurisdiction to investigate her complaint about her social housing landlord’s delays in completing repairs to her rented home.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about information the Council gave him on tenants he rented a property too, or support the Council provided those tenants. That is because his complaints are late. We will also not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council will not reimburse him for damage he states the tenants caused to his property. That is because it is reasonable for Mr X to claim through his insurance or take court action to recover costs for damage.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs B’s complaint that the Council damaged her property when it was repairing the guttering at the adjoining Council-owned property. This is because we cannot investigate complaints about the management of social housing by councils.

Summary: Miss X complains about the Council’s failure to provide her with the support she needs to access services. There was no fault in the way the Council has dealt with Miss X’s contact with it about her housing and Blue Badge application.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the level of priority given to Miss X’s housing application. The evidence suggests the Council properly reached its decision.

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about suitability and recharges for damages for Miss X’s interim accommodation. This complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Miss X could not have complained to us sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of matters relating to EICR Regulations and Mr X’s tenanted property. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council or injustice caused to Mr X sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint that the Council took too long to process her Right to Buy application. This is because it was reasonable for Mrs B to use the statutory notice of delay procedure, and if needed, take the Council to court.

Summary: Mr B complained the Council failed to deal with his application as homeless from October 2020. He said the Council’s failings meant he suffered significant uncertainty and worry about his housing situation. There was fault by the Council. It will remedy the injustice to Mr B by apologising and making a payment. It will also take action to address the failings identified in this statement.

Summary: Mr X complained, on behalf of his mother, the Council wrongly closed her application for a housing transfer. The Council offered a property and considered the reasons for refusal and used its professional judgement to decide the property was suitable. The Council has now explained why it did not use its discretion to make a further offer and why it did not treat the applicant as homeless. There is no evidence of fault in those decisions.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the housing register because the complainant could have used his review rights. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to cancel the complainant’s application to purchase their home under the right to buy scheme. 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 Miss X’s housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mr C complained at the service he received from the Council and its contractor both before and after he became homeless in January 2022. We upheld the complaint, finding a series of failings by the Council’s contractor centred around its record keeping, decision making and communications. These failings caused injustice to Mr C including that he received no offer of suitable temporary accommodation for six months while he was homeless. The Council has accepted these findings. At the end of this statement we set out a series of actions it has taken, or agreed to take, to remedy Mr C’s injustice and improve its services.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council did not fairly assess her banding and bedroom needs when she sought a review. We find the Council was at fault for failing to consider all relevant evidence and follow its policy. The Council will apologise for the injustice caused, carry out a new review and carry out service improvements to prevent the fault reoccurring.

Summary: There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to bypass Mr X for an offer of housing as it did not have enough information to verify his application. The Council asked Mr X for more explanation of a second address on his bank statements but this was not supplied until after the decision to bypass the offer was made.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s response to his complaints about anti-social behaviour by its tenant. This is because the complaint relates to the Council’s management of its social housing which lies outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a fence repair as this matter is not within our legal remit.

Summary: Ms D complained the Council delayed deciding her housing needs register application, mishandled her homelessness application and failed to communicate with her during 2022. The Ombudsman has found the Council at fault.

Summary: There was no fault in how the Council dealt with Mr X’s homelessness application. It considered the information it had at the time and reconsidered its decision when new information came to light. Nor was there any fault in the accommodation it provided Mr X or in the way it considered Mr X’s disabilities.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed carrying out her housing allocation banding review request. The Council delayed carrying out Ms X’s banding review by eight months. This meant she remained in unsuitable accommodation during that period without the ability to improve her situation and bid on suitable properties. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X, make payments and backdate her priority to June 2023.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s priority on the housing register. 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 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 decision to place Miss X in temporary accommodation. This is because the complaint concerns events that took place more than 12 ago and there is no good reason to investigate events that took place this long ago.