South Holland District Council (24 007 345)

Statement Upheld Allocations 11-Mar-2025

Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council refused her application to join its social housing register. There was no fault in how the Council made its decisions about Miss X’s housing register application, though it did provide some conflicting reasons for its decisions. That caused Miss X some avoidable confusion for which the Council agreed to apologise. The Council will also remind its staff they should include clear explanations of the reasons for appeal decisions.

London Borough of Bromley (24 015 823)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Allocations 10-Mar-2025

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her housing register applications. It is unlikely an investigation would lead to a finding of fault or achieve what Ms X wants.

Manchester City Council (24 015 910)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Allocations 10-Mar-2025

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s provision of accommodation which she says is unsuitable. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Westminster City Council (24 012 013)

Statement Upheld Allocations 07-Mar-2025

Summary: Ms B complained the Council placed her family in unsuitable temporary accommodation. The Council failed to properly consider suitability for five months, and then did not provide suitable accommodation for a further three months. This meant Ms B’s family were left in a single overcrowded room which affected their health. The Council has agreed our recommended remedy.

Stevenage Borough Council (24 017 184)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Allocations 07-Mar-2025

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

North Yorkshire Council (24 007 615)

Statement Upheld Allocations 06-Mar-2025

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his homelessness and housing register applications. In particular, its failure to properly understand his disability needs, its poor communication and its failure to make reasonable adjustments so he could access its services. Mr X also complains he could not bid for several months. Mr X said that, but for the Councils failings he would have been able to successfully bid for suitable adaptable property. We have found fault in the Councils handling of Mr X’s housing register and homelessness applications and communications about the applications. The Council has agreed to issue a further apology and pay Mr X a financial payment.

London Borough of Havering (24 016 549)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Allocations 06-Mar-2025

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint her housing application. It is reasonable to expect Ms X to have asked the Council for a review of its decision.

London Borough of Ealing (24 016 810)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Allocations 06-Mar-2025

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s housing application. Part of the complaint is late without good enough reason to investigate it now and it is unlikely we could reach a clear enough view on old events. On other points, there is not enough evidence of fault, or we could not achieve more.

London Borough of Camden (24 005 110)

Statement Upheld Allocations 06-Mar-2025

Summary: Miss X complained about delays in how the Council assessed her priority for social housing. There was fault in how the Council took too long to assess Miss X’s medical priority and review its decision and in how it communicated with Miss X. The Council agreed to apologise, pay Miss X a financial remedy, and produce an action plan to address its backlog of overdue reviews.

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (24 009 447)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Allocations 05-Mar-2025

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application and its allocation of accommodation in 2007. This complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mrs X could not have complained to us sooner. We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the rejection of a direct management transfer because it is outside our jurisdiction.