Stratford-on-Avon District Council (20 007 020)
Statement Upheld Allocations 29-Jul-2021
Summary: The Council was at fault for moving Mr X to a property which was unsuitable. This caused Mr X significant injustice as the doorways in the property are too narrow for his wheelchair. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (20 012 624)
Statement Upheld Allocations 29-Jul-2021
Summary: The Council did not make clear to a family, in writing, why it withdrew its offer of housing or that it could withdraw discretionary housing points at any time. There was no fault in the Councils decision to discharge its main housing duty. The Council's direct offer of a flat (made during the investigation of this complaint) has ensured the family have adequate housing, although it is not in a house which is the family's preference over a flat.
Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (20 004 719)
Statement Upheld Allocations 28-Jul-2021
Summary: There is some fault in how One Vision Housing, acting on behalf of the Council, dealt with Mrs X's application for housing. OVH is not at fault in how it considered Mrs X's medical evidence. Its failure to tell Mrs X about a change in her band was fault but did not cause injustice. OVH sent a letter in error which caused avoidable confusion. It also signposted Mrs X's complaint to the wrong ombudsman twice, putting Mrs X to significant time and trouble. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay Mrs X £350, and take action to improve its service.
London Borough of Bexley (20 011 302)
Statement Upheld Allocations 22-Jul-2021
Summary: Mr B complained, for Mrs C, the Council failed to consider Mrs C's circumstances when it refused her housing application in 2020. Mr B says Mrs C has been unable to access suitable housing. We found fault with the Council for its delay assessing Mrs C's housing application and providing her with information about how to ask for a Care Act assessment. This delay caused Mrs C injustice and the Council will take action to remedy this.
Nottingham City Council (19 005 605)
Statement Upheld Allocations 22-Jul-2021
Summary: Mr X and Ms Y complain about the Council revoking a housing improvement notice and a lack of assistance when they became homeless. The Council is not at fault for revoking a housing improvement notice and in the assistance provided when Mr X and Ms Y were threatened with homelessness. The Council is at fault for not providing interim accommodation when Mr X and Ms Y's removals were brought forward and on the day Mr X and Ms Y were evicted. It is also at fault for providing unsuitable interim accommodation, so they have lived in unsuitable accommodation for 19 months. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice to Mr X and Ms Y by apologising and making a total payment of £2150 to them.
Eastbourne Borough Council (20 012 122)
Statement Upheld Allocations 20-Jul-2021
Summary: The Council was at fault for the way it handled Ms X's request for rehousing. This resulted in the Council not reviewing its decision despite Ms X requesting this. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and carry out a review of its decision.
London Borough of Newham (20 007 300)
Statement Upheld Allocations 15-Jul-2021
Summary: The Ombudsman found fault on Ms R's complaint about the way the Council dealt with her application to join its housing register. It failed to consider her overcrowded conditions under its housing policy. This caused no injustice. It also failed to: advise and consider whether these conditions amounted to homelessness; warn her about its practice of suspending those shortlisted from bidding; respond to all correspondence from her. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.
Leeds City Council (20 009 551)
Statement Upheld Allocations 15-Jul-2021
Summary: The Ombudsman found no fault on Mr Y's complaint about the Council's delay rehousing him, it preventing him from bidding for houses, or its refusal to award him the highest banding priority. The Council is not responsible for the time taken to make a successful bid, nor did it prevent him bidding for houses, and it properly considered his priority request. It delayed reviewing his medical needs but the action it took to remedy the mistake means there is no remaining injustice to Mr Y.
London Borough of Camden (20 004 851)
Statement Upheld Allocations 12-Jul-2021
Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr Q's complaint about the Council's handling of his housing register application. This is because he has gone to court about the matter.
Gedling Borough Council (20 005 460)
Statement Upheld Allocations 07-Jul-2021
Summary: Ms X complained about the Council's assessment of her priority on the Housing Register and her bids for social housing. There was fault in the way the Council communicated its housing review decision to Ms X in September 2020. It has apologised for this error and taken steps to improve the quality of review decision letters. But there was no fault in its decision to confirm her priority band on the Housing Register then. And there was no fault in the way it considered and ranked her bids for properties.