London Borough of Southwark (24 013 449)

Statement Upheld Allocations 24-Jun-2025

Summary: Mr X complained that for many months the Council had failed to consider his application for a change of his priority banding on medical grounds. We found fault with the Council for its significant delay to consider Mr X’s application and its failure to send its decisions to Mr X in writing and tell him about his right to ask for a review. The Council’s fault caused injustice to Mr X. The Council has agreed to apologise, backdate Mr X’s higher priority banding and make a symbolic payment to recognise his uncertainty and distress. The Council has also agreed to carry out some service improvements.

Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (24 014 537)

Statement Upheld Allocations 24-Jun-2025

Summary: Mr D complained the Council incorrectly refused his housing transfer application. I have not found fault in the Council’s decision to refuse the application but there is fault in the ambiguous wording used in the Council’s decisions and a failure to explain how childcare issues were assessed. The Council has agreed to apologise.

London Borough of Lambeth (24 000 994)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Allocations 23-Jun-2025

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the priority the Council awarded on its housing register because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement..

London Borough of Lambeth (24 014 177)

Statement Upheld Allocations 23-Jun-2025

Summary: We found fault on Mr Y’s complaint about the Council failing to act on his reports of the condition of his temporary accommodation. Records were not made, retained, and checked about previous problems with the same property. It failed to carry out a housing needs assessment before he moved in or act promptly on his reports. Nor did it keep its suitability under review, and it failed to follow its own complaints procedure. The Council agreed to send Mr Y an apology for the failings, pay £3,850 as he lived in unsuitable accommodation, a symbolic £100 payment for increased electricity costs, and £400 for avoidable distress. It agreed to review procedures and remind officers of the need to keep temporary accommodation’s suitability under review.

Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council (24 022 470)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Allocations 23-Jun-2025

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the outcome of his housing register application. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Thurrock Council (24 022 602)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Allocations 23-Jun-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.

London Borough of Havering (24 022 707)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Allocations 23-Jun-2025

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about a Council decision that she is not eligible to join its housing register. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

London Borough of Harrow (24 007 307)

Statement Upheld Allocations 22-Jun-2025

Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council handled his housing application. The Council failed to properly consider its homelessness duties to Mr X, or his priority for social housing under its allocation policy. This fault meant Mr X and his family lived in unsuitable accommodation for eighteen months longer than they needed to. The Council agreed to apologise, make a direct offer to Mr X of its next suitable available property, and pay a financial remedy. It will also provide an update on its backlog of housing priority decisions, issue reminders to its staff, and produce an action plan to prevent recurrence of the same fault.

London Borough of Hackney (24 014 261)

Statement Upheld Allocations 22-Jun-2025

Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed reviewing its decision on her housing register application. When it did the review, Miss X complained it failed to consider the relevant medical evidence when deciding her priority award. She also complained the Council prevented her from bidding on adapted properties, despite needing one due to her disabilities. The Council significantly delayed reviewing its decision which was fault. The Council then carried out the review and there was no fault in how it reached its decision. It also did not prevent Miss X from bidding on adapted properties. The Council has agreed to provide evidence that it has paid the £200 it offered Miss X in its stage two response to remedy the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused by the delay in carrying out the review.

City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (24 015 409)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Allocations 22-Jun-2025

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council withdrew a housing offer. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice. In addition, we cannot investigate the actions of Housing Associations.