Summary: Mr X said the Council failed to properly assess his homelessness application and its housing duties and failed to properly assess his application for a discretionary housing payment. We found the Council was at fault for failure to fulfil its homelessness duties causing him to miss out on accommodation. This caused Mr X frustration, uncertainty, distress and put him to the time and trouble of complaining. We have not made a finding about Mr X’s application for a Discretionary Housing Payment. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to repay the complainant all rent arrears owed by a tenant who is claiming Universal Credit for her housing costs. The remaining outstanding rent is a legal tenancy matter and it is reasonable to seek a remedy by way of the courts.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s withdrawal of Miss X’s right to buy application in 2022. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation. it was reasonable for her to apply to the County Court for instruction to the Council proceed if she believed there was delay in completing her conveyance.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s provision of temporary accommodation. It is reasonable for Miss X to challenge the Council’s review of her accommodation in the County Court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council did not update its choice-based letting website. This is because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council managed her housing needs once it agreed to a management transfer because of antisocial behaviour. She said the Council delayed in making a suitable offer of accommodation, offered an unsuitable property, and withdrew support for her move when she raised concerns about the property offered. We have found the Council at fault for not having a clear approach to prioritising and allocating properties where it has agreed a management transfer. We have also found the Council at fault for failing to consider whether it owed Miss X a homelessness duty and for a lack of clarity in its Allocations Scheme. We have made recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: Miss X complains the Council did not consider all the relevant information when completing a review of her priority for housing. We find fault with the Council for errors with Miss X’s priority date and bedroom entitlement, delay in completing the review, and failing to consider all the evidence presented. We have agreed the Council will carry out another review.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council misrepresented, and failed to pass on, vital information about a tenant it introduced to her under its private landlord scheme. The Council is at fault for failing to keep notes of its involvement in the tenancy arrangement. This did not cause an injustice to Ms X but the Council will take action to prevent reoccurrence.

Summary: There was no fault with how the Council handled Mrs X’s housing application which was done in line with the Allocation Policy. The Council was at fault for providing incorrect information to Mrs X. This caused Mrs X a minor injustice which the Council remedied during its investigation of her complaint.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s delay in assessing his housing register application causing him stress. We will not investigate this complaint because the Council accepted fault and agreed to resolve Mr X’s complaint early by providing a suitable remedy.

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Miss X’s housing application. this complaint which 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. He complaint about the Council adding her husband to her tenancy is outside our jurisdiction because it concerns the actions of a social housing landlord.

Summary: The Council was at fault for the delay in moving Ms X and her children to alternative suitable temporary accommodation. This caused injustice to Ms X as she has spent a significant period of time living in unsuitable accommodation. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and make a payment to her for the time she spent in unsuitable accommodation.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council was at fault in the way it dealt with her need to move from her temporary accommodation after the Council decided it was unsuitable for her and her family’s medical needs causing distress. We found fault because the Council has not provided Ms X with suitable temporary accommodation, and we have made appropriate recommendations. So, we have completed our investigation.

Summary: Miss X complained her temporary accommodation, provided by the Council is unsuitable due to her needs, its size and its disrepair. Miss X also complained about her allocation banding and she feels it should be higher. She says this has impacted her health and the health of her family. There was fault in the way the Council did not ensure issues in the temporary accommodation were fixed in a timely manner. Miss X was frustrated by the delay. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a financial payment.

Summary: A woman complained that a housing association unreasonably refused to offer her a property the Council had nominated her for. But we will not investigate this matter because there is no sign of fault by the Council, and we cannot look at the actions of the housing association.

Summary: The complainant (Mr X) said the Council failed to reconsider his Warm Homes Discount application after a change of Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) for his property. We cannot investigate this complaint as it relates to the Council’s management of its social housing. Moreover the Council was not responsible for the actions complained about.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the discount the Council gave when Miss X bought her home. Miss X could reasonably have used her right to go to court. We will not seek to undo Miss X’s legal agreement with the Council now.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council misled a housing applicant into thinking she had been offered a property. There is not enough evidence that fault by the Council has caused the complainant a significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to progress a right to buy application without addition evidence of residency. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to exercise their right to appeal to the county court. Also, the Council has apologised for giving incorrect advice on the Ombudsman service which is a satisfactory remedy to the remainder of the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Mr X’s homeless application. It was reasonable for him to challenge the outcome by way of an appeal to the County Court.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint that she was not approved to act as a host for Ukrainian Refugees. That is because the Council was not responsible for that decision therefore we have no jurisdiction to investigate. We will also not investigate her complaint the Council has failed to process her subject access request. That is because it would be reasonable for Mrs X to refer her complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office.