Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council did not respond to forms she submitted, and failed to increase her priority on the housing register, when she reported anti-social behaviour and threats from a neighbour. Mrs X said her family was forced to flee their temporary accommodation and missed out on the chance of being offered permanent social housing. We find the Council at fault for failing to send two decision letters. This denied Mrs X her right of appeal. We are satisfied the Council has already apologised.

Summary: there was significant fault in the Council’s decision to place Miss X and her young child in a bed and breakfast (B&B) hotel for ten weeks when she was homeless. This accommodation was unsuitable for her needs. She had already spent six weeks in a different B&B hotel at an earlier stage in the same homelessness application. There was also poor communication with Miss X about a proposed move to alternative temporary accommodation and a failure to inform her she had the right to request a review of the suitability of the accommodation. These faults caused serious injustice to Miss X who is vulnerable because of mental health issues. She also incurred extra costs while she was living in the B&B hotel. The Council has agreed to provide a suitable remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council has dealt with a man’s rehousing case since 2011. This is mainly because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and many of the issues are now too old for us to look into.

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 Miss X’s housing application. There was no fault that would have caused Miss X a significant injustice in the Council removing Miss X from the housing register. The Council properly reached its later decision not to reinstate the application.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to retract a housing offer to Miss X. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to provide a different outcome for Miss X.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s homelessness decision. The complainant appealed the decision to the County Court. Therefore, we have no jurisdiction to investigate.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about housing allocations. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify further investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consideration of Mr X’s housing application. It is reasonable for him to seek a statutory review of the decision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to serve notice on Miss X’s temporary accommodation after its assessment of her housing application. This is because it is reasonable to expect her to use her right of appeal to the County Court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in a Right to Buy transaction because we could not say, on balance of probability, the Council’s delay caused the injustice claimed by the complainant, so the matter does not warrant us investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Prison and Probation services’ failure to refer Mr X to the Council for a homeless assessment in 2021. We have no jurisdiction over the Prison and Probation services who fall within the remit of the Prison and Probation Ombudsman Service. We will not investigate the Council’s homeless decision in 2023 because it was reasonable for Mr X to seek a review of the decision.

Summary: Miss X complains the Council delayed resolving issues with hot water and heating in her temporary accommodation. Miss X also says issues with damp in the bathroom remain unresolved. We found the Council failed to address issues about damp. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a financial payment and investigate and respond to Miss X’s concerns about damp.

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: the Council was at fault because it delayed assessing whether Mr Z was vulnerable and in priority need when he was homeless. However, when it later completed the assessment, it decided he was not vulnerable and so he was not owed the interim accommodation duty. This means the delay did not cause injustice to Mr Z. There was further fault because the Council failed to issue a Personalised Housing Plan when it accepted the relief duty. This caused some uncertainty about the steps the Council had agreed to take to relieve Mr Z’s homelessness and it denied him the option of requesting a review if he disagreed with them. The Council has agreed to provide a suitable remedy for this injustice.

Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council decided he did not qualify for an extra bedroom on his application for social housing. The Council’s policy on additional bedrooms was poorly worded, which was fault, but this did not cause Mr X a significant personal injustice. The Council will amend its policy.

Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council has failed to implement its agreed recommendations in relation to her complaint. The complaint was about the Council not helping her and her family when they were made homeless. We find the Council was at fault for the unexplained drift in the case. This caused significant stress to Mrs X. To address the injustice caused by fault, the Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment.