Birmingham City Council (20 007 281)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Homelessness 18-Dec-2020

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s decision to remove her application from the housing register because she did not meet the 12-month residency requirements in its allocations procedure. We should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

London Borough of Ealing (20 000 023)

Statement Upheld Homelessness 16-Dec-2020

Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not deal properly with disrepair in her temporary accommodation, or with her concerns about the accommodation being overcrowded and unaffordable. As a result, Ms X states she and her family experienced inadequate living conditions, inconvenience and financial hardship. There was fault by the Council that has caused injustice to Ms X. The Council will apologise to Ms X and make a payment.

St Albans City Council (19 015 131)

Statement Not upheld Homelessness 15-Dec-2020

Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint about the conduct of a housing officer who conducted a housing options interview with the complainant.

Liverpool City Council (19 018 549)

Statement Upheld Homelessness 15-Dec-2020

Summary: the complainant says the Council failed to protect her property when she applied for help as a homeless person resulting in her losing many of her possessions. The Council says it replaced essential items and offered £200 for the rest. The Ombudsman finds the Council acted with fault and recommends an increased remedy.

London Borough of Southwark (20 001 583)

Statement Upheld Homelessness 14-Dec-2020

Summary: Mr B complained about the Council’s involvement in his housing situation from 2012. He considered his application to the housing register was not in the right band and he should have a higher medical priority. He said the two-bedroom flat was not suitable for his family’s needs. There was fault by the Council but it did not cause injustice to Mr B.

Brighton & Hove City Council (20 006 422)

Statement Upheld Homelessness 14-Dec-2020

Summary: Mr F complained the Council disposed of his personal belongings from his emergency accommodation before the agreed collection date. The Ombudsman has identified fault with the actions of the Council and believes this has caused an injustice to the complainant. As such, we have recommended a remedy.

Birmingham City Council (20 006 599)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Homelessness 09-Dec-2020

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 and insufficient evidence of injustice. In addition, there is no meaningful outcome that could be achieved by starting an investigation.

Manchester City Council (19 016 264)

Statement Not upheld Homelessness 09-Dec-2020

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council failed to support Ms M when she could not access her new home and was made homeless. He says this meant she ended up paying higher rent for different accommodation. The Ombudsman does not find the Council at fault.

London Borough Of Barnet (20 000 026)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Homelessness 08-Dec-2020

Summary: We shall not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Ms X’s homelessness and housing matters. This is mainly because the complaint is out of time and because of Ms X’s right to go to court.

London Borough of Redbridge (18 000 313)

Report Upheld Homelessness 02-Dec-2020

Summary: Ms X complains via a representative that the Council wrongly left her family in bed and breakfast accommodation for more than a year and wrongly blamed her for failing to co-operate in resolving her situation. The Council failed to refer the matter to its homelessness team, and it did not assess Ms X, or provide her with suitable accommodation while this should have been happening, nor give her a written decision and opportunity to appeal. We find it more likely than not, given the Council had sought to persuade the borough from which Ms X had moved that she was not intentionally homeless, it would have reached the same view if it had acted properly. This caused injustice to Ms X and her children in having to live in unsuitable accommodation for more than a year. However, had Ms X been intentionally homeless, the Council might have been able without fault to place the family in the same bed and breakfast accommodation under the terms of the Children Act 1989, subject only to regular review of the children’s needs. This Act does not have the same focus regarding accommodation as housing legislation. We have therefore issued this report because of the potential for conflict between housing and social care duties, which may lead to perverse outcomes for children in need in other cases.