Allocations archive 2019-2020


Archive has 347 results

  • Medway Council (19 017 238)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Allocations 11-Mar-2020

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to consider his mental health conditions when deciding his priority for housing allocation and that it delayed in responding to his complaint. The Ombudsman will not consider Mr X’s complaint about his priority banding further because it is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to investigate now. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate the Council’s complaint handling alone.

  • Birmingham City Council (19 004 890)

    Statement Not upheld Allocations 10-Mar-2020

    Summary: There was no fault by the Council in the way it dealt with Mr B’s housing and homelessness applications.

  • London Borough of Southwark (19 008 153)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Allocations 09-Mar-2020

    Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s failure to give her any medical priority for her housing application. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

  • London Borough of Barnet (19 009 682)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Allocations 09-Mar-2020

    Summary: Ms X complained about the Council refusing her application for rehousing. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

  • London Borough of Enfield (19 015 385)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Allocations 05-Mar-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about how the Council has assessed her housing need as Ms X is challenging the Council’s decision in court.

  • London Borough of Lambeth (19 016 383)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Allocations 04-Mar-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman 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.

  • London Borough of Enfield (19 017 156)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Allocations 04-Mar-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council has not implemented the remedy from a previous complaint to the Ombudsman. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

  • Norwich City Council (19 002 649)

    Statement Upheld Allocations 03-Mar-2020

    Summary: Ms B says the Council failed to award her suitable priority on the housing register and unreasonably refused to adapt two properties she successfully bid on. There is no fault in how the Council dealt with Ms B’s housing priority. The Council delayed identifying it could not adapt one property which raised Ms B’s expectations and prevented her bidding on properties for three months. An apology is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused given the works the Council has completed at Ms B’s current property, as a gesture of goodwill.

  • London Borough of Haringey (19 007 308)

    Statement Upheld Allocations 03-Mar-2020

    Summary: the complainant says the Council did not properly consider her application for increased priority under its housing allocations scheme. The Council says it considered both the evidence provided and advice given by its medical adviser. The Council recognises it did not consider fully all the information presented. In a later review the Council referred the complainant’s application to its decision panel which increased the complainant’s priority to Band B. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault in not reaching that view earlier and recommends a remedy.

  • Stroud District Council (19 008 251)

    Statement Not upheld Allocations 02-Mar-2020

    Summary: Miss X complained the Council did not award her a high enough housing priority. She said this resulted in her and her son living in unsuitable accommodation. The Council was not at fault with the processes it used to reach its decision. We do not uphold Miss X’s complaint.

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