Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Ms X’s housing application. She says the Council has not awarded her an appropriate priority band. 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 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 assessment of a housing application. It is reasonable for Miss X to request a statutory review of her housing priority.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not involve him in creating his personalised housing plan (PHP) and delayed reviewing his PHP when he requested. Mr X said this caused him distress when he was facing eviction from his home. There was fault in the way the Council did not include Mr X creating his PHP and delayed completing the review. Mr X did not suffer any personal injustice due to this fault. The Council should remind its staff of the importance of accurately recording communications to inform decision making.

Summary: The Council was at fault for the way it responded to Ms X’s reports of mould and damp. This caused injustice as Ms X cannot be sure whether the Council could have taken steps to investigate and remedy the conditions in her property. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and make a payment to her for the distress and uncertainty caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to award medical priority for Ms X’s housing banding. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the suitability of allocation of temporary accommodation by the Council. This complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Ms X could not have complained to us sooner.

Summary: Ms K complains the Council has failed to award her medical priority for housing and give her a property which would be suitable to her needs. We found the Council failed to properly consider Ms K’s medical requests following its housing allocations policy. This meant the Council’s decisions not to give Ms K greater priority for housing were flawed. We also found fault by the Council for issues relating to disability and equality particularly with comments made to her by individual Council officers. These failings have caused Ms K a significant injustice. The Council has now agreed to remedy this.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X complaint about the Council’s decision to remove her husband’s medical priority from their housing application. 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 that the complaints housing officer has failed to engage with him. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome and some of the complaint is made late.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the actions of a council officer. He says the officer discriminated against him based on his race. This is because an investigation would not lead to any different outcomes. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Mr X’s housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: Miss Y complained the Council had not moved her to alternative accommodation as it offered to do in May 2022. She also complained it did not provide her with appropriate support to engage with this process. We have not found fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s delay in providing a decision about his medical priority review application. We find the Council at fault which caused Mr X uncertainty and distress. The Council will apologise and make a payment to Mr X to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her homelessness application. This is because it was reasonable for Miss X to ask the Council for a review of its housing decision and appeal to the court if this was unsuccessful.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Miss X’s temporary accommodation. This is because Miss X could reasonably have used her right to go to court.

Summary: The Council’s repeated failure to identify and correct the conflicting information it gave Ms X about her housing application was fault. The Council’s fault caused Ms X avoidable distress and uncertainty for over two years and raised her expectations about likely rehousing. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Ms X to remedy this injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Ms X’s permanent accommodation. It was reasonable to expect her to seek a suitability review by the Council and then, if necessary, to appeal to the courts.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council issuing Mr X with a fine and a Prohibition Notice in connection with a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) he owns. This is because Mr X had appeal rights to the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) which we would reasonably have expected him to have used so placing the complaint outside our jurisdiction.