Archive has 694 results
-
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.
-
London Borough of Bromley (19 016 745)
Statement Upheld Homelessness 16-Mar-2020
Summary: Ms X complains the Council placed her in unsuitable accommodation and failed to move her despite saying it would. The Council accepts it did not provide interim accommodation while dealing with Ms X’s homelessness application and left her in unsuitable accommodation for 20 months. A suitable remedy for the injustice caused to Ms X is agreed.
-
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.
-
London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (19 017 679)
Statement Not upheld Homelessness 13-Mar-2020
Summary: The Ombudsman has discontinued his investigation of this complaint about the suitability of temporary accommodation. This is because the complainant has the right to request a review.
-
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.
-
London Borough of Lambeth (19 016 384)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Homelessness 12-Mar-2020
Summary: Ms X complained about the suitability of her temporary accommodation and the priority which the Council has given to her housing application. The Ombudsman should not exercise his discretion to investigate this complaint. This is because it concerns allocation of temporary accommodation in which Ms X was placed more than 12 months before she complained to the Ombudsman. We will not investigate her complaint about her housing priority because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
-
Sheffield City Council (19 018 682)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Homelessness 12-Mar-2020
Summary: A man complained that the Council unreasonably downgraded his priority on its Housing Register after he refused an offer of accommodation. But the Ombudsman does not have reason to start an investigation of this matter. This is because the Council has now restored the man’s priority, and it is unlikely we could achieve a better outcome for him than this.