Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about @.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision that she is not in priority need and its refusal to take a new homelessness application. Ms X had rights of appeal to the county court that it was reasonable for her to use and there is insufficient evidence of fault in the recent decision that it will not accept her new application.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the lack of progress with Mr X’s application to buy his home from the Council. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to use his right to take court action.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. It is reasonable for Mrs X to ask the Council for a further review of its banding priority decision.

Summary: We cannot investigate the Council’s decision to take possession of a property. That is because we have no jurisdiction to investigate complaints where the Council is acting as a social landlord. We also will not investigate Mr X’s complaint he was not eligible to join the housing register. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that the complainant is not eligible for a two bedroom home via the housing register. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about housing allocations and homelessness. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and where there may be fault, we are satisfied with the actions the Council has taken to remedy any injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to take enforcement action over an unsafe boundary wall. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the suitability of the complainant’s temporary accommodation. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because the complainant can ask for a suitability review.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse her and her husband’s application to sponsor Ukrainian refugees at their home. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

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 cannot investigate this complaint about a homeless hostel’s approach to substance misuse. That is because the Charity running the hostel is not within our jurisdiction. The Council has provided advice about how to report anti-social behaviour. Further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council giving biased advice to tenants and giving insufficient support to a private landlord. There is insufficient evidence of any significant injustice which would 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. It is reasonable for Miss X to ask for a new review of her case when she submits new information requested by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a leak from a Council owned property. This is because it does not meet the tests set out in our Assessment Code. We have no remit to consider complaints about the management of social housing.

Summary: Miss X complains that the Council delayed in offering suitable temporary accommodation and in dealing with her complaints of disrepair. The Council is at fault as it delayed in assessing the suitability of Miss X’s temporary accommodation and delayed in offering suitable temporary accommodation. The Council has not taken sufficient action to deal with disrepair at Miss X’s temporary accommodation. The faults by the Council have caused distress to Miss X and caused her to live in unsuitable temporary accommodation for longer than necessary. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice to Miss X by apologising and making a payment of £800 to her for the distress caused.

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of her homelessness application. The Council had already accepted it was at fault for not allowing Miss X to join the choice-based lettings scheme and for wrongly deciding she was intentionally homeless. We also found the Council at fault for failing to update records promptly. However, we did not find the Council at fault for its response to reports about disrepair. But we found there is remaining injustice caused by the Council’s fault, in the form of distress, lost opportunity, and uncertainty, which the Council agreed to remedy.

Summary: We have found fault with the Council for failing to secure suitable accommodation for Miss X when she was homeless after fleeing domestic abuse. This caused Miss X prolonged uncertainty and distress. The Council has agreed to remedy Miss X’s avoidable injustice by securing suitable accommodation, an apology and a payment.

Summary: Miss B complained about unresolved disrepair issues in her temporary accommodation. We found the Council at fault as there were long delays for agreed repairs to be completed. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to resolve repeated repair issues with her temporary accommodation, making the property unsuitable to live in. The Council failed to assess the suitability of Miss X’s accommodation and failed to act on repeated reports of disrepair. This caused Miss X and her family frustration and distress. The Council will apologise, make a payment to Miss X and review its processes for responding to reports of disrepair with its temporary accommodation.

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 and Miss X could ask for a further review to consider new information about her medical needs.

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

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision on Mr X’s homeless application. It was reasonable for him to ask for a statutory review of the decision and the Council advised him of this right.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council has told him he must remove the balcony from his flat. This is because the Council owns the freehold of the property and the complaint concerns its management of the property, which he owns on a long lease. Such actions are not within our jurisdiction to investigate.

Summary: Ms Q complained about the Council’s handling of her housing application and assessment of medical priority. She said she experienced distress due to the impact her housing circumstances had on her. We found the Council at fault for causing significant delays in her 2022 request for medical priority, but no fault in the process it followed to reach its decision, it therefore reached decisions it was entitled to make. The Council will apologise to Ms Q, back date her medical priority start date, and make payment to acknowledge the injustice its delays caused.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision not to award him a higher priority band on his housing application. Mr X also complained about the Council's decision to reverse its homelessness decision made in 2021. He says his household was overcrowded and the property was full of mould and damp. We found fault by the Council and it has agreed to tell Mr X of his right to request a review of its decisions.