Allocations archive 2021-2022


Archive has 418 results

  • London Borough of Enfield (20 013 228)

    Statement Upheld Allocations 23-Feb-2022

    Summary: The Ombudsman found fault by the Council on Ms L’s complaint about how it processed her housing application. It delayed processing it, has an allocation scheme which does not explain whether officers assess studio flats as a bedroom, failed to consider whether her accommodation was statutory overcrowded or whether officers should take a homeless application from her. It failed to properly consider all her circumstances when removing her housing and well-being points. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

  • Thanet District Council (21 003 921)

    Statement Not upheld Allocations 22-Feb-2022

    Summary: There is no fault in the Council’s decision to place Mr X in housing band C. There is no evidence to support a move to a higher priority band from the information supplied to the Council. This complaint is not upheld.

  • London Borough of Hackney (20 011 800)

    Statement Upheld Allocations 22-Feb-2022

    Summary: The complainant, Mr X complained the Council failed to provide suitable temporary accommodation or decide if it owed him a housing duty within a reasonable time. Mr X says this left him in unsuitable accommodation for much longer than it should. The Council says it reviewed suitability and found the accommodation suitable for Mr X. We found the Council acted with fault and it has agreed a remedy.

  • Birmingham City Council (21 014 593)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Allocations 22-Feb-2022

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the housing register because there is insufficient evidence of injustice and because we cannot investigate Housing Associations.

  • Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (21 015 594)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Allocations 22-Feb-2022

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council had dealt with the complainant’s housing application. That is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating.

  • Birmingham City Council (21 008 237)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Allocations 21-Feb-2022

    Summary: We have stopped investigating Mr and Mrs B’s complaint about the Council’s decision to remove them from its housing register. This is because Mr and Mrs B have applied to the Court to judicially review the Council’s decision. The complaint is therefore outside of our jurisdiction.

  • London Borough of Haringey (21 015 452)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Allocations 21-Feb-2022

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council might offer private sector accommodation to the complainant. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

  • South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (21 015 763)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Allocations 18-Feb-2022

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

  • Royal Borough of Greenwich (21 004 654)

    Statement Upheld Allocations 17-Feb-2022

    Summary: The Council was at fault for the way it dealt with Mr X’s housing application. The Council delayed in referring Mr X to an Occupational Therapist, delayed in reviewing Mr X’s medical priority and request for an additional bedroom and was at fault for the way it reached its decision on Mr X’s medical priority. As a result, it took the Council much longer to provide Mr X with a decision on his housing application and he cannot be sure the Council came to the correct decision about his medical priority. To remedy the injustice caused the Council agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mr X and review how it carries out Medical Assessments.

  • London Borough of Croydon (21 004 883)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Allocations 17-Feb-2022

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

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings