Archive has 330 results
-
Statement Upheld Allocations 16-Mar-2020
Summary: There is insufficient evidence to show that the Council followed its own policies when it considered an application for housing and the Council has lost the relevant records. This is fault. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms B, restore her original band date and review her application.
-
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Allocations 16-Mar-2020
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s refusal to allow him to bid on properties which he would like to transfer to. The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint. This is because it concerns a transfer request by a social housing tenant who is not considered to have reasonable preference under the Housing Act 1996 and is outside our jurisdiction.
-
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Allocations 16-Mar-2020
Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s assessment of her housing application. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
-
Birmingham City Council (19 017 449)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Allocations 13-Mar-2020
Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council handled reports of anti-social behaviour. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it relates to the Council’s actions as a social housing provider, and the Housing Ombudsman is therefore best placed to consider it.
-
Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (18 010 671)
Statement Upheld Allocations 12-Mar-2020
Summary: Mr B complains about the actions taken by the Council in respect of an application for medical priority to obtain more suitable housing in the Council’s area. We find the Council has not fully considered the extent of Mr B’s health needs and the support his carer provides. But we also find Mr B has not given full information to support this process. The Council has agreed to obtain further evidence and carry out another review of his medical needs.
-
London Borough of Southwark (19 004 930)
Statement Upheld Allocations 12-Mar-2020
Summary: Miss B complains the Council failed to deal properly with her application for rehousing. The Ombudsman finds there was some fault by the Council in its handling of her housing application. Miss B was put to some time and trouble as a result. That was an injustice, for a which remedy has been agreed.
-
London Borough of Tower Hamlets (19 009 615)
Statement Not upheld Allocations 12-Mar-2020
Summary: Miss X disagrees with the Council’s decision she is not homeless. Miss X can appeal this decision in the County Court so the Ombudsman will not investigate. The Council is not at fault for refusing Miss X’s application to join its housing allocations scheme.
-
Luton Borough Council (19 003 941)
Statement Not upheld Allocations 11-Mar-2020
Summary: Mrs X complains the Council awarded the wrong priority banding meaning she was unable to bid on houses and has delayed a move. Mrs X’s priority banding is correct based on her current, assessed needs and it has amended the mobility code. The mobility code does not affect priority and so has not prevented a move. The Council has used its professional judgement to make the decision only ground floor accommodation is suitable for Mrs X but there is no evidence of fault in how it reached that decision.
-
Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (19 004 717)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Allocations 11-Mar-2020
Summary: Miss X complained about the Council preventing her from applying for vacant houses and limiting her bids to certain types of property on the housing waiting list. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
-
Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (19 018 201)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Allocations 11-Mar-2020
Summary: Miss X complained the Council placed her family in the wrong priority band on its housing register. We will not consider this complaint because it is unlikely that investigation by us would achieve a different outcome. The Council amended the family’s priority banding through its appeals procedure, and it is unlikely we would find fault in how it came to its most recent decision.