Summary: Mr W complained the Council has delayed its review of its decision he was not in priority need of housing. When its review was completed, it agreed he had priority. We found the Council has caused a delay and is therefore at fault.

Summary: Mr X complained about matters relating to his homelessness including the failure to add him to the housing register; failure to make a referral; failure to provide housing benefit advice and that his interim accommodation was unsuitable. Mr X says he suffered a deterioration in his mental health and suffered financially. There was fault in not adding him to the housing register as his application should have been awarded reasonable preference due to being homeless. A suitable remedy for the injustice caused is agreed.

Summary: there was fault in the way the Council considered Miss X’s request for a medical assessment and a review of her priority on the Housing Register. She has recently been offered a property. But she did not get a decision on her request for medical priority and is left with the uncertainty of not knowing whether she might have been awarded higher priority on medical grounds. The Council has agreed to provide a personal remedy for Miss X and to make service improvements.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to meet its duties to him when he became homeless and gave him the wrong priority on its housing allocation register. There was fault in how the Council handled Mr X’s homeless application which caused him confusion at a difficult time. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X, review its procedures, and issue reminders to its staff. However, I did not investigate the rest of Mr X’s complaint. When Mr X came to the Ombudsman, the Council was still within time to consider its reviews of his housing allocation priority and whether he was in priority need as a homeless person. Also, there is no merit in investigating further any information the Council provided Mr X about a homeless shelter.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in the Council opening its energy company obligation (ECO4) scheme for applications. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, the alleged fault has not caused any significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the way it handled her homelessness application because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application in 2016. 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. We will not investigate the Council’s assessment of Mr X’s current application because it is reasonable for him to ask for a statutory review of the Council’s decision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to accept a housing application to its housing register. It was reasonable for the applicant to ask for a statutory review of the decision and this is ongoing.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to take action when his landlord tried to illegally evict him. We found the Council followed the correct enforcement procedures and was not at fault in the support it offered Mr X. However, we found the Council was responsible for delays when it did not progress the enforcement case. This caused avoidable frustration and distress which the Council agreed to remedy.

Summary: Mrs G complained about how the Council dealt with her request for a suitability review of her interim accommodation and its subsequent delay in providing her family with suitable accommodation. We found the Council at fault for causing unnecessary delays in the review process and for its ongoing failure to move her family to a suitable interim accommodation. The Council should apologise to Mrs G and make payment to remedy the injustice it caused, and continues to cause, her and her children.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s investigation of neighbour nuisance caused by its tenants in a block of flats. We have no jurisdiction to investigate the actions of social housing landlords in tenancy matters.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council has not properly completed a review of its decision he is intentionally homeless. Mr X says he suffered economic loss and avoidable distress. The Council is not at fault.

Summary: There was fault by the Council. The council did not issue a written decision after it decided Mr X was not homeless or not in priority need. Issuing the decision remedies the injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint. The Council’s fault with Miss X’s housing application did not deprive her of an offer of housing. Miss X can reasonably ask the Council for a suitability review of her temporary accommodation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s consideration of his housing register priority. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s priority on the housing register and neighbour problems. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because we have no power to investigate the complaint about neighbour nuisance.

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

Summary: there was fault in the way the Council responded to Miss X’s request for its private sector housing enforcement team to investigate disrepair in her rented flat. Miss X suffered some distress and frustration. The Council has agreed to pay Miss X a financial remedy and make a service improvement.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council has delayed in deciding his homelessness application and housed himself and his family in unsuitable accommodation. This denied him the right to appeal the accommodation’s suitability and prevented him from joining the housing register. The Council’s delays in issuing a decision on Mr X’s homeless application and its failure to properly consider the suitability of the interim accommodation it provided is fault. This fault has caused Mr X an injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to complete Mrs X’s Right to Buy application. The Council is disputing the validity of her application due to its anti-fraud measures. It is reasonable for Mrs X to seek a remedy in the courts if she believes the Council’s actions are blocking her legal conveyance.

Summary: Ms D complains the Council delayed reviewing its housing register banding decision in 2022. We have not found evidence of fault by the Council and have completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.