Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to properly consider the suitability of her property and delayed an Occupational Therapy (OT) assessment. We found the Council had considered the affordability and noise issues Miss X raised. However, it delayed the OT assessment and does not appear to have considered exercising discretion regarding the length of time Miss X had been resident in its area. We recommended an apology, a payment and actions to put things right.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not following its Housing Allocations Policy. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by completing a review of the information provided by the complainant. That is a proportionate remedy for any injustice caused.

Summary: Mr B complained the Council did not deal with his homelessness application properly and discriminated against him. There was fault by the Council. It should apologise, take the action specified below and make a payment to Mr B.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council placing Miss X in unsuitable accommodation and will not award her medical priority to be rehoused. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to pay Mr X compensation because it is reasonable for Mr X to pursue the matter through the courts.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing medical priority for Ms X’s housing application. Investigation is unlikely to find fault undermining the decision-making. The Council adequately remedied the impact of its delay reviewing its decision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Ms X’s housing application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation, and the Council has reviewed and increased her priority so we could achieve nothing more by investigating.

Summary: The Council delayed assessing Miss B’s housing application and then delayed carrying out a review of its decision that Miss B did not qualify to join the housing register. The Council has since accepted Miss B’s application to join the register. It has apologised to Miss B for the delays and it has backdated her registration date. We do not consider any further remedy is warranted.

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 emergency accommodation. The complaint about the accommodation’s suitability is late, without good reason to accept it now, and it is unlikely we could reach a clear enough view now. The complaint about the Council delaying invoicing Mr X for the accommodation does not cause a significant enough injustice to warrant investigation.

Summary: The Council delayed reviewing the decision it made to discharge its housing duty to Mrs X, and failed to inform Mrs X when it overturned the decision. It did not give Mrs X sufficient priority on its housing register and left Mrs X and her family living in severely overcrowded accommodation for over two years. The Council has recently moved the family to suitable accommodation and it has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X. It has also agreed to make service improvements.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council incorrectly removed her son from her housing application and failed to advise her of this. The Council has admitted fault. Miss X was disadvantaged when she lost the opportunity to bid on properties she would have been eligible for which were then allocated to others with later priority dates or in lower priority bands. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Miss X.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council has refused to provide her with temporary accommodation. This is because Miss X has a right of appeal and it is reasonable for her to use it.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s procurement of insurance for the building in which Miss X holds a lease with it. It is reasonable for her to seek a remedy with the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) which is the body appointed to deal with lease and service charge disputes.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Miss X being in temporary accommodation for over four years and the suitability of the accommodation offered to her family. It was reasonable for her to challenge the Council’s review of suitability of the accommodation by way of an appeal to the County Court.

Summary: Mr Y complained about the Council’s handling of his homelessness application. He said it did not do enough to help him when he became homeless or act on his review request of its decision on his homelessness application. On the evidence available, we found evidence of fault by the Council. We ask the Council to apologise to Mr Y and make a payment in recognition of the uncertainty caused to him.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s failure to handle her homelessness application properly. I have found the Council to be at fault because it did not process her review request. This caused Ms X distress and uncertainty. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and reduce the amount she already owes the Council. It will also take action to ensure reviews requests are not missed.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to remove Ms X’s daughter from its housing register. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s rejection of an application to its housing register. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to grant succession rights to family members following the ending of a previous Council tenancy held by a parent. The succession decision and the issuing of temporary licences to occupy council property are tenancy matters and we have no jurisdiction not investigate the actions of social housing landlords.

Summary: We have no power to investigate this complaint about the behaviour of officers when asking the complainant if he had the correct permissions for building works, because it is about the Council’s management of its leasehold properties. And it would not be a good use of our resources to investigate the complaints process in isolation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs X’s experience with the ‘Sustainable Warmth’ energy efficiency scheme. This is because an investigation is unlikely to add to the Council’s investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to properly assess Mrs X’s housing application under medical grounds. She says the Council has ignored its own occupational therapist report. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to respond to Mr X’s application for housing relief. This is because it relates to events that took place more than 12 months ago and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate them now. Further, even if we did exercise discretion, an investigation would be unlikely to result in a worthwhile outcome for Mr X.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council placed her and her children in unsuitable accommodation which had an adverse impact on her own and her children’s health. The Council’s failure to review the suitability of the interim accommodation provided to Ms X when it was presented with new medical evidence and evidence of disrepair and Category 1 hazards is fault. This fault has caused Ms X an injustice.

Summary: Ms X complains that the Council failed to provide sufficient help with her homelessness. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council considered what homelessness duty it owed to Ms X when she first made her homelessness application and in how it considered her priority on the housing register. There is evidence of fault in how the Council drew up Ms X’s personalised housing plan and it delayed in reviewing that plan. But these faults did not cause significant injustice to Ms X.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council has failed to properly consider her medical condition and housing needs when assessing her priority on the housing register and property entitlement. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered Miss X’s housing needs. However the delay in responding to Miss X’s review request is fault, for which the Council should apologise.

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council’s consideration of Mrs X’s transfer application. This complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mrs X could not have complained to us sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council managed an application on its housing register. This is because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement and further investigation will not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council handled Miss X’s homelessness application. This is because the Council has offered a remedy which seems proportionate so we could not add to its investigation or achieve a different result.