Allocations archive 2017-2018


Archive has 327 results

  • Braintree District Council (17 011 015)

    Statement Not upheld Allocations 28-Mar-2018

    Summary: The complainant says the Council has not properly considered medical and welfare information supplied in support of her request for additional priority for her housing application so she can bid for three bedroom accommodation. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault by the Council and he has therefore ended his investigation of this matter.

  • Coventry City Council (17 011 955)

    Statement Not upheld Allocations 28-Mar-2018

    Summary: Ms X says the Council is at fault in its handling of her request for priority need for housing on medical grounds. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault by the Council but he recommended the Council's housing panel consider Ms X's circumstances to see if any exception should be made to allow to her to bid for accommodation more suitable for her needs. The Council agreed to do so.

  • Liverpool City Council (16 019 279)

    Statement Upheld Allocations 28-Mar-2018

    Summary: The Council when applying limits under its housing allocations policy failed to properly consider the exceptional circumstances created by harassment. However, through its review it restored a housing applicant to the same priority banding previously awarded resolving the complaint.

  • Birmingham City Council (17 010 216)

    Statement Upheld Allocations 27-Mar-2018

    Summary: The Council acted with fault in giving incorrect housing application advice for which it apologised and awarded appropriate backdating so the applicant did not lose out on priority for housing.

  • London Borough of Hounslow (17 016 571)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Allocations 27-Mar-2018

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B's complaint that the Council has failed to offer him a property. This is because Mr B's complaint about what happened before January 2017 is late and there are not good reasons to investigate it now and it is reasonable to expect Mr B to ask the Council to review its decision on his current housing application if he is not happy with it.

  • Poole Borough Council (17 010 542)

    Statement Upheld Allocations 26-Mar-2018

    Summary: Ms X complains the Council provided her with unsuitable interim accommodation and property when discharging its homelessness duty towards her. The Council also failed to offer her secure accommodation for 12 months. The Ombudsman found fault as the Council denied Ms X an opportunity to refuse the secure accommodation if she considered it unsuitable. And the opportunity to request a review of the Council's offer. The Council has accepted it was at fault. It has accepted the Ombudsman's recommendations it should apologise to Ms X, pay her £300 and carry out service improvements.

  • Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (17 008 061)

    Statement Not upheld Allocations 26-Mar-2018

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to consider his mental health and refused to allow him to bid for three bedroom houses. He also complains the Council lost his transfer application from 6/7 years ago. I have found no fault in the way the Council processed Mr X's transfer application and assessed his eligibility for housing.

  • Coventry City Council (17 011 877)

    Statement Not upheld Allocations 26-Mar-2018

    Summary: The Ombudsman has not found fault in the way the Council considered Ms C and Mr D's application for housing priority based on health difficulties.

  • London Borough of Southwark (17 009 410)

    Statement Upheld Allocations 23-Mar-2018

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to award the correct medical priority for his housing application. There was some fault in the medical assessment report. However, this did not affect the outcome or cause Mr X an injustice.

  • London Borough of Lewisham (17 018 066)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Allocations 23-Mar-2018

    Summary: Miss X complained about the Council's failure to rehouse her even though she has been on the housing register for many years in overcrowded conditions. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council's part which has caused Miss X injustice.