Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that the complainant does not qualify to join the housing register. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mrs C complained about the way the Council handled her claim for compensation for defects and damage caused to her property by contractors who received a Home Improvement loan to renew her roof. We have upheld one part of her complaint and found fault by the Council in the way it responded to Mrs X’s concerns about the contractor’s standard of work and her compensation claim, causing injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice by; apologising and making a payment to reflect the distress caused; arranging for a surveyor to inspect the roof and meeting the cost of any work identified by the surveyor; and making a service improvement.

Summary: Mr B complained the Council failed to provide him with adequate support when he approached it for help with his homelessness. He adds the Council wrongly removed him from the housing register and it failed to put him in the correct priority banding under its housing allocations scheme. We find some fault with the Council as it has failed to demonstrate it properly considered Mr B’s bedroom need and therefore priority banding. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.

Summary: Mrs X complained that she was living in severely overcrowded conditions, which was causing distress to herself and her family. She wanted the Council to inspect her flat and increase her priority on the housing register. We found fault because there was a delay of a year in the Council completing the inspection. We have recommended the Council should apologise to Mrs X, make her a symbolic payment in recognition of her avoidable time and trouble in pursuing her complaint, and backdate the date of her entry to the highest priority band on the housing register.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to properly consider her circumstances when refusing her application to join the housing register. This caused her distress as she is isolated from her family and unable to return to the area where she grew up. There is no fault by the Council in refusing to add Miss X to the housing register but it should have done more to signpost her to other housing advice including to make a homeless application. A suitable remedy is agreed.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council has handled the complainant’s housing application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council wrongly suspended his housing account for six months and that it has refused to backdate his housing application to 2019. Part of the complaint is late and there is insufficient evidence of fault in its recent actions to warrant an investigation.

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

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about homelessness temporary accommodation because Ms X took court action.

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about problems with a boiler replacement after the Council grant-aided the works to a private home in 2020. 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: The Council’s failure to decide whether it owed Mr X a homelessness duty in 2022 was fault. It failed to recognise that he was homeless because of domestic abuse and failed to provide interim accommodation. The Council has agreed to apologise, backdate Mr X’s housing application, make a payment and act to improve its services.

Summary: Miss G complains about the Council’s actions after she was the victim of fraud. She says the Council should have allowed her to stay in a property as interim accommodation, as the landlords were happy with that arrangement. But the Council tried to move her to interim accommodation further away from her children’s schools and only gave her short notice. We do not uphold this complaint, as the Council was entitled to make the decisions it did. So they are not ones the Ombudsman can criticise.

Summary: There was fault by the Council. The Council’s decision on a families housing priority was made without an assessment that a piece of medical equipment could fit in a room for its use. Carrying out an assessment and backdating any resulting increase in priority remedies the injustice to the family.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council unfairly refused her request to view a property in person and then decided she had unreasonably refused the property. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that the complainant cannot host any more Ukrainian guests. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a discretionary offer of housing following a tenancy succession complaint. We cannot investigate complaints about the management of tenancies by social housing landlords.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has not offered the complainant a larger home. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. 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.

Summary: Mr X complains on behalf of his son, Mr Y, who is a disabled adult, about how the Council assessed Mr Y’s priority for social housing allocation. There was fault by the Council which caused avoidable distress to Mr Y, and avoidable distress, time, and trouble to Mr X. It also may have caused Mr Y a missed opportunity to bid on a property that is suitable for him. The Council agreed to apologise, pay a financial remedy, and reconsider Mr Y’s application, backdating this as needed. It will also consider whether it should make changes to its processes or staff guidance to address the faults identified.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s delays and failure to provide her with assistance to help her resolve her homelessness. The Council was at fault for failing to provide appropriate advice and assistance and for poor communication with Ms X, for not issuing decision letters or referring her to its private lettings teams and for not proactively supporting Ms X to address her housing situation. This caused Ms X uncertainty and frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Ms X and provide staff training/guidance.

Summary: Ms X complained about the way the Council handled her request for housing assistance and how it responded to her concerns about the condition of her property. As a result, Ms X lived in a property with repair issues and this impacted her health. We have found the Council at fault for delays in assisting Ms X following her approach for homeless assistance but we have not found the Council at fault for not responding to her requests for help with disrepair. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X and pay £200 to recognise the uncertainty caused.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council allocated his family a property which is unsuitable for their medical needs. Mr X says his parents’ physical and mental health have deteriorated due to their current living conditions. We have found the Council at fault. To remedy the injustice caused the Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment and ensure all necessary equipment is in full working order before allocating properties in future.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not making adaptations to his property in line with the recommendations of an occupational therapist. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a delay in uploading a housing register application. The Council has upheld the complaint and offered an appropriate remedy. Further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alleged discrimination by the Council in relation to Mr X’s homelessness case. Mr X successfully used his appeal rights against the suitability of an offer of permanent accommodation. There is no evidence of earlier fault, nor did any fault cause him an injustice as he did not move into the unsuitable accommodation. It is reasonable for Mr X to refer to the courts for a decision about whether he suffered discrimination.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to rehouse her after promising to do so four years ago as that part of the complaint is late. We will not investigate the Council’s decision she did not qualify for its housing register because she had a right of review, which it was reasonable for her to use and because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s operation of a landlord licensing scheme in its area. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council’s administration of a home improvement grant in 2022. 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.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. It was reasonable for Ms X to ask the Council to conduct a statutory review of the decision on her application.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council damaging Mrs B’s property when it replaced the roof of the adjoining property. This is because we cannot investigate complaints about the management of social housing by councils.

Summary: We will not investigate X’s complaint about a failure to send them all relevant information when they made a subject access request. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider that complaint. We will not investigate the Council’s delay in reviewing its decision that X did not meet the criteria for medical priority or communicate with them about it because the Council has already made an appropriate offer to remedy the injustice caused.