Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed accepting a housing duty, provided temporary accommodation unsuitable for her family’s needs, and failed to address concerns about the condition of the accommodation. She also complained about the Council’s communication. We have found the Council at fault. We have made recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council handled his housing register application. He said this had an impact on his mental health, and caused unnecessary uncertainty. We have discontinued our investigation into this complaint. This is because Mr X has a right to appeal a Council decision, which supersedes his complaint, and because we cannot achieve the outcomes Mr X wants.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application and restrictions on bidding presented to Ms X under the housing allocation partnership of which the Council is a member. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that a council officer’s behaviour was unprofessional and that the officer made unwarranted criticisms of him. This is because an investigation would not lead to any worthwhile findings or outcomes.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s need to move to a suitable home. This is because there is nothing meaningful we could achieve as an outcome.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s social housing plans as such matters are not within our remit.

Summary: Mrs X complains about how the Council has dealt with party wall issues in connection to the neighbouring council-owned property. The law prevents us investigating the Council’s actions regarding the wall.

Summary: The Council was at fault because it delayed accepting the prevention duty for a homelessness applicant, and because it delayed processing his request for a review of his banding on the housing register. Neither fault affected his substantive situation, and the Council has already offered an adequate remedy for the frustration it caused. However, the Council has agreed to take steps to remind its staff of the law around the prevention duty. The Council was not at fault for deciding the applicant was not in priority need, even though it later reversed this decision.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about a Council’s homelessness decision. Ms X had a right of appeal to the county court which it was reasonable for her to use. The Council has agreed to consider an application to the housing register. An investigation by use would achieve nothing more.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s investigation of disrepair in his private rented home. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council delaying its verification of a right to buy application for a Council property. It is reasonable for Mrs X to use the statutory delay procedure provided by the legislation to seek a remedy for the delay.

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to pay rent arrears and a rent deposit owed by Mrs X’s tenant for whom it paid a rent deposit guarantee in 2015. 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: Mr X complained about the Council’s delay in completing his medical assessment and re-assessing his priority band on the housing register. He also complained it failed to act on an adjudicator’s recommendations. We have found fault by the Council, causing injustice, in its delay in completing Mr X’s medical assessment and its failures to: consider expediting the assessment; act on the adjudicator’s recommendations; and inform Mr X of his review rights. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by apologising, making a payment to reflect Mr X’s distress and uncertainty, considering the exercise of management discretion about his priority band, and making service improvements.

Summary: We found fault by the Council on Mrs G’s complaint about its decision to cancel her Right to Buy application. It failed to make her a written offer within 8 weeks, failed to tell her of her right to seek a remedy through the courts when it cancelled her application, and failed to make and retain evidence of the request for advice, along with the advice received, from a third party. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the suitability of her temporary accommodation. It would be reasonable for Mrs X to ask the Council for a suitability review.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council caused delays in the Right to Buy process, but said she had to contribute to roof works, and she was not eligible for its energy efficiency scheme as she had started the RTB process. We have discontinued our investigation. This is because Mrs X has rights under the Housing Act 1985 to seek a remedy or action through delay notices and the court. Also, we cannot investigate her concerns about the Council’s decisions in relation to its management of social housing.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to discharge its homelessness duty following an offer of accommodation to Miss X. It was reasonable for Miss X to challenge the decision and the suitability of the offer made to her by way of a statutory review and further appeal to the County Court of unsuccessful.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. It is reasonable for Mrs X to ask for a review of her housing banding if she is dissatisfied with the current assessment.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the priority band awarded on the Council’s housing register because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s interactions with a member of a Tenants’ and Residents’ Association. That is because the law says we cannot investigate the Council in its role as a a social landlord.