Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed and made errors in respect of his homelessness application impacting his position on the housing register and causing distress. The Council accepts fault in not accepting the main housing duty when it had already determined Mr X was homeless by accepting the relief duty. The Council has now agreed a suitable remedy.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly investigate and take appropriate action in relation to reports of disrepair and safety concerns at his privately rented property. We found there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council investigated or responded to reports of disrepair at Mr X’s home.

Summary: Mr P complained about the lack of support he received from the Council when he was threatened with homelessness. We upheld the complaint, finding the Council failed to always follow the law and Government guidance, communicated poorly, and made mistakes in its handling of Mr P’s case. We consider this caused Mr P avoidable distress. The Council has accepted these findings and agreed to remedy Mr P’s injustice, with actions detailed at the end of this decision statement.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council offered her unsuitable temporary accommodation and delayed in responding to her reports about this. Ms X says this impacted on her mental health and she had to live in conditions which were unsuitable. We have found the Council at fault. To remedy the injustice caused to Ms X, the Council agreed to apologise and make a payment to Ms X to acknowledge the distress and hardship she experienced living in unsuitable accommodation.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about her housing register priority banding. Since bringing her complaint to us, the Council has reassessed Ms X’s application. If Ms X is dissatisfied with the reassessment, it is reasonable for her to request a review.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed processing his housing register application. Mr X said he was unable to bid for properties and has lived in unsuitable conditions for longer than necessary. We have found fault by the Council but consider the agreed action of an apology, symbolic payment, backdating the outcome of the application and a review to identify any missed bidding opportunities provides a suitable remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has not provided the complainant with ground floor accommodation. 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 housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council seeking to purchase a property that the complainant had been privately renting, and the difficulties this caused to her family. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mx D complains the Council failed to meet their housing and social care needs when they were homeless. They said, as a result they experienced distress and had a loss of care support. We found the Council’s Housing and Adult Social Care teams caused delays and faults in its processes. The Council will apologise and make payment to acknowledge the injustice Mx D experienced.

Summary: Mrs X’s complaint about matters between 2020 and 2022 is late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate it now. Mrs X had a right of appeal to court about the suitability of her temporary accommodation. The Council was at fault for delay accepting homelessness duties and poor communication. It has already offered a suitable remedy for the injustice this caused.

Summary: We have decided not to investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s award of band 3 on its housing register. The Council has upheld the complaint and agreed to remedy the injustice caused by carrying out a fresh review of its decision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision on Ms X’s homeless application. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Councils investigation of her case and it was reasonable for her to challenge the statutory review decision by appealing to the County Court.

Summary: Mr X complained about how he has been treated by the Council. He said: staff are discriminating against him because of his homelessness and disabilities; the Council has not supported him properly because he does not have access to the services; the Council asked him to sign a tenancy agreement without having the chance to see the property and said the Council’s communication has been poor. We find the Council was at fault for failing to respond to some of Mr X’s emails. This caused him significant distress. To remedy this injustice caused by fault the Council has agreed to apologise.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed processing his housing application and carrying out a medical assessment. He also complained about the Council’s decisions regarding his housing priority and restrictions on certain types of property. We have ended our investigation of Mr X’s complaint. The Council accepted faults in communication, complaint handling, and delays in processing Mr X’s application. It apologised, backdated Mr X’s housing priority, offered a suitable financial remedy, and offered Mr X a review of its decision on property restrictions. Further investigation by the Ombudsman could not achieve any more for Mr X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions while Mrs X was homeless. The complaint is late without good enough reason to pursue it now. Any review is unlikely to have changed the housing register priority. Mrs X could reasonably have used her right to go to court about the delay completing the suitability review and the result of that review. Compensation is properly a matter for the courts, not for us.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions with regard to an empty property. We cannot investigate complaints about how councils spend public resources which affects all or most of the residents of their areas. There is insufficient evidence of any significant personal injustice to Mr X caused by the Council’s actions.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council sending the complainant’s mail to the wrong address. This is because the complainant is a leaseholder of the Council.

Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council allocated a property to another applicant after Mrs X successfully bid for the vacant property which the Council invited her to view. There were faults by the Council which caused injustice to Mrs X. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about The Council’s homelessness decisions. Ms X has taken court action against the Council’s decisions and is currently awaiting the outcome of another review of the decisions. We have no jurisdiction to investigate matters which have been subject to court proceedings or which carry a further right of appeal to a court. We will not investigate her claim about loss or damage to stored possessions. It is reasonable for her to make a claim against the Council for negligence.

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: We will not investigate this complaint about how much priority the Council gave Miss X’s housing application. The evidence suggests the Council reached its decision properly, so investigation would be unlikely to find fault.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to award her housing application the correct priority banding. We found fault in how the Council awarded bedroom eligibility to Miss X’s application, but this did not prevent her from bidding for properties she was eligible to bid on. We did not find fault in how it considered medical information provided by Miss X. The Council agreed to apologise to Miss X for the fault we found.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that her priority band is incorrect, that she is only allowed to bid on flats, and that the Council admitted to giving her low priority as she does not bid enough. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: Miss X complains the Council failed to respond to her contacts and delayed assessing her homelessness application. We found there was fault and the apology and payment the Council offered to Miss X was a reasonable remedy to her complaint.