Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to properly consider its offer of a payment to her in recognition of her remaining in unsuitable temporary accommodation for 10 months causing her distress. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the matter. So, we have completed our investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s wish to be re-housed. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant wants.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about how the Council disposed of belongings from a property. That is because we have no jurisdiction to investigate matters where the Council is acting in its role as a social landlord.

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Mr X’s housing and homeless applications up to 2019. 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 found fault by the Council on Miss J’s complaint about it failing to consider the means of escape from the accommodation it inspected. There is no evidence it considered this at the time. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Summary: Ms B complained that the Council has failed to provide her with suitable temporary accommodation and failed to carry out a review of the suitability of her current hostel accommodation. We found fault with the actions of the Council. The Council has agreed to provide Ms B with suitable temporary accommodation, pay her £2,600 and review its procurement process to increase the supply of different types of temporary accommodation.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed dealing with her housing application appeal. She also complained about delays in the complaints process and the Council has not responded to complaints. Miss X said this has delayed her moving and exacerbated her health conditions. There was fault in the way the Council delayed making decisions and poor communication in this case. Miss X was frustrated by the delays and poor communication. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X, make a financial payment and evidence its staff received complaint handling training.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council is xenophobic, that it falsified his signature, and that the Council committed identity theft. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, there is another body better placed to consider Mr X’s complaint.

Summary: There was fault in the Council’s handling of Ms X’s application to the housing register and her homelessness. This caused Ms X avoidable distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Ms X and act to improve its services.

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: Miss C complained the Council failed to provide adequate support about her housing situation which meant she stayed with relatives in unsuitable conditions for longer than necessary. We have found fault by the Council but consider the agreed action of a symbolic payment to recognise Miss C’s uncertainty and distress about the opportunity of being offered suitable accommodation sooner and future service improvements provides a suitable remedy.

Summary: Ms X complains about how the Council dealt with her application for the housing register. The Council is at fault as it did not respond to Ms X’s request for the Executive Director to consider if she had exceptional circumstances and failed to tell her that it would not consider her complaint. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice to Ms X by sending a written apology, making a symbolic payment of £200 to acknowledge the distress caused and considering whether Ms X has exceptional circumstances to join the housing register.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council’s decision not to give her housing application medical priority is wrong. We have found evidence of fault in how it considered her request. The Council agreed to apologise and to backdate its decision to place her housing application into priority band B.

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Mr X’s homeless application. 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.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about water charges for the complainant’s temporary accommodation. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed carrying out reviews of her housing banding between 2021 and 2023 and failed to properly consider medical evidence when it refused to change the banding from Silver to Gold. There was no fault in how the Council carried out the reviews and considered the evidence Miss X provided when it decided not to change her banding to Gold. However, it failed to carry out any of the three reviews in line with timescales set out in its policy. It agreed to pay Miss X £100 to recognise the frustration and time and trouble the delays caused her.

Summary: Mr X complained that the Council failed to deal effectively with a mice infestation in his homelessness temporary accommodation. We found the Council was at fault in failing to take action to resolve the matter. In recognition of the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and make a payment to him. It has also agreed to take action to ensure the infestation is eradicated.

Summary: Mr D complained how the Council handled his request to join the housing register. He says the Council unfairly refused his application without clearly explaining why and it refused to give him the opportunity to rectify matters. He also says the Council failed to deal with his complaints. We find the Council was at fault for failing to give Mr D detailed reasons why it was rejecting his appeal of its decision to exclude him from the housing register. It also failed to properly deal with his complaints. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.

Summary: The Council delayed assessing Miss B’s housing application and review request. The Council has backdated Miss B’s housing priority award date to make up for the delays. The Council has also agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Miss B.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s assessment of her housing application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant investigation.

Summary: The Council failed to properly consider whether to prosecute Mr B’s former landlord for harassment. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B and consider again whether to prosecute his former landlord.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council delayed reviewing the suitability of an offer of accommodation and its housing priority decision. The Council has accepted there were delays completing the reviews. Because of the delays, we find Mr X likely missed out on the offer of a Council property sooner than he did. He was caused significant distress and frustration during the delay. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X, make him several payments, including for the period he was left in accommodation that was unsuitable for his disability-related needs, and make certain service improvements.

Summary: Miss B says the Council failed to communicate properly with her or provide her with support, failed to act when her landlord was evicting her, gave her incorrect information and failed to allocate stars to her housing register application. The Council delayed awarding stars for the housing register application and failed to communicate effectively with her on occasion. An apology, payment to Miss B, amending information provided to homeless applicants and a reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: There was some fault by the Council for the way it handled Ms X’s housing application, however this has not caused injustice.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the way the Council handled the complainant’s housing situation. This is because we have no power to investigate a council when it is acting as a landlord. We will not investigate other parts of the complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about housing allocations because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council serving Mr X with an improvement notice for disrepair at his rented property. It was reasonable for him to appeal the notice to the First Tier Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s delay in processing the complainant’s Right to Buy application. The complainant has already used the processes set out in the relevant legislation and the Council deducted rental payments from the sale price. The Council has apologised for the earlier delay and offered the complainant £250 in recognition of the distress caused. We consider this a suitable remedy and further investigation will not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s homeless application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.