Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Luton Borough Council (18 014 571)

    Statement Not upheld Allocations 20-May-2019

    Summary: Mrs B says the Council failed to offer her family a property even though she was top of the list on several occasions since 2016. There is no fault in how the Council considered Mrs B's bids for various properties.

  • West Devon Borough Council (18 012 640)

    Statement Not upheld Allocations 15-May-2019

    Summary: Mr B complains about how the Council dealt with his housing needs, taking account of his health, and how it dealt with his correspondence about that. The Ombudsman finds there was no fault by the Council.

  • North Somerset Council (18 000 969)

    Statement Not upheld Allocations 13-May-2019

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not provide him with sufficient assistance since he presented as homeless and threatened with homelessness. The Ombudsman has not found the Council to be at fault.

  • Boston Borough Council (18 012 662)

    Statement Not upheld Allocations 13-May-2019

    Summary: Mr Y complained the Council did not include his autistic son's needs as part of his application for housing. This meant Mr Y is only eligible for one-bedroom properties when he says he needs a two-bedroom property. There was no fault in how the Council considered Mr Y's housing application.

  • Wellingborough Borough Council (18 005 640)

    Statement Upheld Allocations 09-May-2019

    Summary: Miss X complains the Council withdrew a housing offer without giving her a reasonable amount of time to provide further medical evidence. The Council is at fault for requesting medical evidence after Miss X matched with a property and for only allowing her 24 hours to provide it. Miss X has now accepted a property. The remaining injustice can be remedied by a payment and apology from the Council.

  • London Borough of Haringey (18 009 884)

    Statement Upheld Allocations 07-May-2019

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed in awarding him maximum priority on the housing allocations register. On the evidence so far, the Council was at fault when it failed to follow its Housing Allocations Policy and award Mr X the maximum priority in 2013. This caused Mr X distress because he was in accommodation which could not be adapted for his wheelchair for a prolonged period. The Council has agreed to award Mr X maximum priority and backdate this to 2013. It has also agreed to make him a financial payment of £4,400 and report to the Ombudsman on how it is meeting its public sector equality duty in providing housing to disabled applicants.

  • Folkestone & Hythe District Council (18 009 788)

    Statement Upheld Allocations 01-May-2019

    Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to correctly apply its Housing Allocations Policy at her mother-in-law, Mrs M's, block of flats. The Council was at fault when it failed to act in line with its Housing Allocations Policy. This caused Mrs M avoidable and prolonged distress, risk of harm and actual harm. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs M, make a financial payment to her and develop procedures for dealing effectively with prospective tenants for sensitive lettings.

  • Vale of White Horse District Council (18 016 234)

    Statement Not upheld Allocations 30-Apr-2019

    Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has wrongly refused to allow her family to bid for a house with an extra bedroom. The Council has not considered Mrs X's complaint through its complaint procedure. We will therefore not investigate Mrs X's complaint.

  • London Borough of Hounslow (18 008 662)

    Statement Not upheld Allocations 23-Apr-2019

    Summary: There is no fault in the way the Council dealt with Ms X's request for adaptations. We are satisfied her application for rehousing was considered in line with the Council's policy and she is in the correct band and so there is no fault.

  • Basildon Borough Council (18 019 359)

    Statement Upheld Allocations 18-Apr-2019

    Summary: Miss X complained about the Council failing to give her housing application sufficient priority on medical grounds. Since Miss X submitted her complaint she has accepted an offer of accommodation and is satisfied with the property. The Ombudsman will not consider this matter further as this is a suitable remedy to her complaint.