Privacy settings

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.


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Birmingham City Council (21 001 808)

    Statement Upheld Allocations 14-Dec-2021

    Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council decided that Mr and Mrs B should be awarded priority Band 2 on its housing register. The Council wrongly recorded the date Mr and Mrs B joined the housing register, but this fault did not cause them any injustice.

  • Wakefield City Council (20 014 355)

    Statement Upheld Allocations 14-Dec-2021

    Summary: The Council was at fault for not addressing Mr X's complaint about the way an occupational therapist had considered whether he could use the bathroom safely when assessing his application for medical priority for housing and for signposting to the wrong Ombudsman scheme. The Council will apologise, pay Mr X £150 for the additional time and trouble caused and make changes to ensure it has appropriate oversight of the organisation that maintains the housing register on its behalf. There was no fault in its decisions not to award medical priority before August 2021, which were in line with its policy.

  • Buckinghamshire Council (20 013 580)

    Statement Not upheld Allocations 14-Dec-2021

    Summary: Mrs N complained the Council did not properly consider her health issues when it assessed her priority banding under its housing allocations procedure. Mrs N says the Council placed her in a lower banding which affected her mental health and caused her stress and anxiety. We did not find fault by the Council.

  • Swindon Borough Council (20 013 551)

    Statement Not upheld Allocations 14-Dec-2021

    Summary: There was no fault by the Council. We were satisfied officers gave Mr X appropriate advice about bidding on a vacant property based on its housing allocations policy.

  • Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (21 003 291)

    Statement Upheld Allocations 13-Dec-2021

    Summary: Miss D complains the Council failed to deal with her complaints of anti-social behaviour (ASB) that she was suffering from her neighbours. She also complains the Council has not assessed her medical needs for housing and that it did not respond to her request for a stage two escalation in line with its policy which has caused her distress. We find fault with how the Council responded to the issues above and it has agreed to apologise, invite Miss D to complete a medical assessment form and make a payment to her in recognition of the distress caused and Miss D's time and trouble pursuing the complaint.

  • London Borough of Wandsworth (21 003 258)

    Statement Not upheld Allocations 13-Dec-2021

    Summary: Mr B complained that the Council has failed to offer him more suitable housing in the seven years he has been on the transfer list and has made mistakes with his application. We did not find fault with actions of the Council.

  • London Borough of Hackney (21 002 858)

    Statement Upheld Allocations 10-Dec-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly assess his housing needs or award the proper priority to his family. Mr X says this resulted in them living in unsatisfactory overcrowded accommodation for longer than they would have if properly actioned. The Council says the cyber attack means it has no records of a housing application or Mr X seeking help to deal with the poor repair of his privately rented home. We found the Council at fault. The Council agreed to apologise, pay Mr X £150 in recognition of the stress and inconvenience and to complete its consideration of his housing application.

  • Leeds City Council (21 001 994)

    Statement Not upheld Allocations 09-Dec-2021

    Summary: Ms X complains the Council wrongly decided not to award her Band A+ housing priority in January 2021. We have found no evidence of fault by the Council.

  • Westminster City Council (20 014 008)

    Statement Upheld Allocations 09-Dec-2021

    Summary: The Council's delay assessing medical information was fault. It has already provided a suitable remedy for this. The Council's failure to provide suitable temporary accommodation is also fault. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay Ms X £1800, and take action to improve its services.

  • Westminster City Council (21 004 382)

    Statement Upheld Allocations 09-Dec-2021

    Summary: We shall not investigate this complaint about the handling of Mr X's housing applications. The complaint about events in 2019 is late. The Council has already done enough to remedy the complaint about more recent events.