Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • London Borough of Havering (18 002 655)

    Statement Upheld Allocations 11-Mar-2019

    Summary: The Council failed to give a housing application the correct priority. If it had given the right priority the complainant could have made a successful bid by the end of 2014. The Council caused injustice as the complainant continued to live in a flat that was too small. Since 2016 the complainant has suffered anti-social behaviour from a neighbour which the Council did nothing to help her with. The Council should apologise to the complainant, give her the correct housing priority backdated to July 2014 and make a payment to the complainant to reflect the injustice its actions caused her.

  • Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (18 006 235)

    Statement Upheld Allocations 04-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mrs B complains that the Council didn't take all the evidence into account when it determined what type of housing it would offer her, and did not consider her eligibility for a disabled facilities grant. The Council was at fault because it based a decision about Mrs B's eligibility for housing on flawed medical advice. Mrs B is left in accommodation that does not meet her son's needs, is uncertain about whether she has been able to bid for appropriate housing and whether her son's medical needs are being taken seriously. The Council should pay Mrs B £200 for the distress caused by the way it handled her housing application and re-assess her eligibility.

  • London Borough of Lambeth (17 007 967)

    Statement Not upheld Allocations 04-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's handling of his housing application. We discontinued the investigation as Mr X became satisfied the Council correctly assessed and prioritised his housing application and he had not missed a housing opportunity.

  • London Borough of Sutton (18 010 190)

    Statement Not upheld Allocations 28-Feb-2019

    Summary: The complainants say the Council failed to properly advise and support them when they needed to move home because of the death of their son. The Council says it offered advice on private rented accommodation, made discretionary housing payments and applied its housing allocations policy to the family's application. The Ombudsman finds the Council acted without fault.

  • Basildon Borough Council (18 008 312)

    Statement Upheld Allocations 28-Feb-2019

    Summary: Mrs C complained on behalf of her brother, Mr D, that the Council failed to provide suitable accommodation to Mr D. He has support needs and was experiencing difficulties living with his step-father. The Council delayed by three months in properly explaining the housing application process to Mrs C and Mr D. The Council has agreed to backdate the new housing application submitted by Mr D, by three months.

  • London Borough of Redbridge (18 007 012)

    Statement Upheld Allocations 27-Feb-2019

    Summary: Ms X complains the Council was at fault in the way it dealt with her Housing Application and removed a Medical Reasonable Preference despite her medical needs. The Ombudsman finds fault as the Council awarded Ms X an Additional Preference in error so raised her expectations of her housing priority and caused distress when removed. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and pay her £150 for the distress caused by this. The Ombudsman finds no fault in the way the Council removed Ms X's Medical Reasonable Preference.

  • Thanet District Council (18 001 708)

    Statement Upheld Allocations 27-Feb-2019

    Summary: Ms X complains the Council has refused their application to join the housing register. The Council is at fault as it has not properly considered the information Ms X supplied in support of her application. It has agreed to do so now.

  • London Borough of Bromley (17 013 534)

    Statement Upheld Allocations 22-Feb-2019

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's decision that he does not qualify for its housing register. There was no fault in the way the Council reached this decision. The Council was at fault as it delayed reviewing this decision but it kept Mr X updated with the likely outcome and so this did not cause Mr X a significant injustice.

  • Stoke-on-Trent City Council (18 009 409)

    Statement Not upheld Allocations 21-Feb-2019

    Summary: There is no fault by the Council. It is willing to carry out the remedy agreed on a previous complaint but is unable to do so without the complainant making contact.

  • London Borough of Waltham Forest (17 012 975)

    Statement Upheld Allocations 14-Feb-2019

    Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with his and his wife's application for council housing. The Council was at fault as it delayed assessing his application and there were administrative errors and poor communication in the way it dealt with his and his wife's medical assessment and application. The Council also failed to explain why it awarded the level of priority it did to this application. The Council has already revised its procedure for dealing with medical assessments. It should provide evidence of this, and how this will address the problems identified, to the Ombudsman. The Council has already apologised to Mr X. It has agreed to pay him £250 to acknowledge the time and trouble and frustration Mr and Mrs X were put to by the Council's faults.