Summary: Miss F complains about the way the Council has dealt with her application to its housing register. This includes not giving her medical priority, not allowing her a two-bedroom property and changing the start date of her application. We find fault with how the Council dealt with awarding Miss F the correct priority. The Council has suggested a remedy which is suitable, as it follows the principles set out in the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance.

Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council has handled his homelessness application. He said the Council failed to consider a change in his circumstances and lied and manipulated him. We do not find fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: Ms F complained about the Council’s handling of her housing register application since 2021 and how it communicated with her. She said as a result she experienced distress and lost out on moves to a suitable property. We agreed with the Council it was at fault for causing an extensive delay in Ms F’s housing application, for its poor communication and its delayed complaints handling. However, its apology and proposed remedy was not enough to acknowledge the injustice this caused Ms F. The Council should make payment to Ms F and provide us with an update on staff training.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to award Mr X higher banding status on its housing register. This is because it is unlikely an investigation would result in finding fault with the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of disrepair and poor conditions in Mrs X’s home. The property is social housing, so the law prevents us investigating.

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council making an unsuitable offer of accommodation to a homeless applicant and then subsequently taking court action for possession of her temporary accommodation. This complaint 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. We cannot investigate matters which have been subject to court proceedings.

Summary: there was fault in the way the Council considered Mrs X’s request for a review of her priority band on the Home Choice Plus scheme. But the evidence does not indicate it would have awarded a higher priority band before October 2023 if this fault had not occurred. The injustice is limited to Mrs X’s frustration with the Council’s failure to make a written decision when she first requested a review and its delay in responding to her complaint.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to properly consider her application to join the housing register. She says the Council considered her student loan and bursary when deciding her income. We did not found fault in the Council’s decision-making process.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the standard of the property Mr X was placed in following a stay in hospital, or the support offered to him during his eviction. This is because the complaint is late and there is no good reason for us to investigate it now.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s maintenance of Miss X’s neighbouring properties as the law says we cannot do so.

Summary: There was delay in offering Miss X temporary accommodation after the main housing duty was accepted. A payment towards her inconvenience remedies the injustice. Giving Miss X a new decision on the suitability of the temporary accommodation in writing will enable Miss X to ask for review of its suitability.

Summary: The Council has been at fault as a family has spent almost a year in unsuitable accommodation. The family spent 30 weeks in Bed and Breakfast accommodation and a further eight months in a hostel. The family now have temporary accommodation in a house. An apology and a payment remedies the injustice to them.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to place Mrs X and Ms Y in Band silver on its housing register as there is not enough evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to allocate social housing to him because there is no evidence of fault. We will not investigate its failure to take a homelessness application in August or December 2023. This is because the Council has upheld the complaint and agreed to remedy the uncertainty caused by paying him £250, which is appropriate.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the suitability of Temporary Accommodation. This is because the complainant is using the statutory review process and will have appeal rights.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s estate parking permits scheme encouraging residents to use polluting vehicles due to the charging system. We have no jurisdiction to investigate complaints about estate and tenancy management by social housing landlords.

Summary: Ms X complains about how the Council dealt with her homelessness complaint. The Council is at fault as it delayed in considering if it owed a homelessness duty to Ms X and then did not notify her of its decision. It also did not take sufficient action to offer interim accommodation to her. As a result, Ms X has lived in unsuitable accommodation for longer than necessary. The Council has agreed to remedy Ms X’s injustice by apologising to her, making a symbolic payment of £2100, accepting the main housing duty and offering temporary accommodation to her.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a review of a homelessness decision. The review decision has been withdrawn, so we cannot achieve significantly more on that. In that context, it would be disproportionate for us to consider whether the Council itself or its contractor should do the new review.

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with disrepair at his private rented accommodation and his priority banding on its housing register. We have found fault by the Council in its delay in dealing with the disrepair issues and failing to properly consider his requests for a change in his priority banding. These faults caused injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by apologising to Mr X, making payments to reflect the upset and worry, and impact of living in unsuitable accommodation for longer than they should have done, together with service improvements.

Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to keep accurate records of its consideration of Ms X’s case at its Exceptional Circumstances Panel. However, this did not cause Ms X a significant injustice. The Council has agreed to act to improve its services.

Summary: Miss X complains the Council failed to properly consider her homelessness application, and failed to consider its duty to her when she was homeless. Miss X also complains the Council did not comply with homelessness legislation, which resulted in her not having support when she needed it. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for its consideration of Miss X’s homelessness application and delaying its acceptance of a prevention duty to her. The Council has agreed to make a financial payment and carry out service improvements.

Summary: Mr B complained how the Council handled his housing situation. He says the Council’s communication was poor, it failed to give him adequate support, it provided him poor advice when he asked for help to resolve his homelessness and it provided him with unsuitable accommodation. We find the Council was at fault for how it handled Mr B’s housing situation. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.

Summary: Mr B complained about the service provided to him by the Council after he became homeless. We cannot investigate part of his complaint about the suitability of temporary accommodation the Council provided. But we uphold the other part, finding some fault as the Council failed to give reasons when it declined to reconsider Mr B’s priority for rehousing under its housing allocation scheme. This caused Mr B uncertainty. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to review its decision.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not properly consider whether it had reason to believe he was homeless when he asked it for homeless assistance. As a result, Mr X could have received help to move to alternative accommodation sooner. To remedy the injustice caused the Council agreed to apologise to Mr X and make a payment to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty he experienced.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s priority on the housing register. This is because there is insufficient evidence of injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council allegedly giving incorrect housing advice in connection with possession proceedings the complainant commenced in mid-2022. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion and investigate the issues now.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mrs X’s concerns about works to the adjoining Council property. This is because we cannot investigate complaints about the management of social housing by councils.

Summary: We cannot investigate the Council’s handling of Mrs X’s concerns about damage to her late relative’s property. This is because we cannot investigate complaints in connection with the Council’s actions as a landlord of social housing.