Allocations


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Charnwood Borough Council (18 019 758)

    Statement Not upheld Allocations 07-Apr-2020

    Summary: Ms X complains the Council housed people with lower priority than her and that changes to its allocations policy mean she is now less likely to place a successful bid. There is no evidence a property was offered to someone with lower priority. Ms X's bid placed her third, no reference was requested, and the Housing Association made no contact with Ms X. While the changes in the allocations policy may mean she will have to wait longer to have a bid accepted, there is no evidence of fault in the process to change the policy.

  • Charnwood Borough Council (19 005 130)

    Statement Not upheld Allocations 07-Apr-2020

    Summary: Ms X complains about the condition a property she moved into as it was not clean and not all rubbish had been removed. She also complains she was without a gas supply for three days. The Council did return and carry out further cleaning and to remove items but this was minimal and did not make the property uninhabitable. The gas supply was not connected on the day Ms X moved in because she did not phone to arrange connection in normal working hours.

  • Birmingham City Council (19 005 833)

    Statement Upheld Allocations 27-Mar-2020

    Summary: Mrs Y complains the Council was at fault in the way it considered her housing application and awarded her banding priority. The Ombudsman finds the Council was not at fault in the way it allocated Mrs Y her housing banding. He does find the Council was at fault as it delayed in considering Mrs Y's review request. The Council has already apologised to Mrs Y for the delay which is suitable action for it to take. So, the Ombudsman has completed his investigation.

  • London Borough of Newham (19 010 338)

    Statement Not upheld Allocations 26-Mar-2020

    Summary: Mr X complains that the Council suspended his housing register application after seven years of bidding for housing, when he had reached the top of the list and would otherwise have been offered accommodation. He says the Council would not accept the evidence he says proves a local connection to the area. He says he should have been able to take up the Council's offer of accommodation in 2018 but he is now stuck in a hostel outside the borough. The Ombudsman does not find the Council at fault.

  • London Borough of Newham (19 006 862)

    Statement Upheld Allocations 19-Mar-2020

    Summary: there was fault in the way the Council assessed Ms X's Housing Register application. As a result, the Council told Ms X she was shortlisted for a property because it made a mistake about her priority date. She suffered disappointment and distress when the Council then bypassed her bid for this property. The Council accepts there was fault and has offered a suitable remedy.

  • Cornwall Council (19 003 075)

    Statement Upheld Allocations 16-Mar-2020

    Summary: There is insufficient evidence to show that the Council followed its own policies when it considered an application for housing and the Council has lost the relevant records. This is fault. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms B, restore her original band date and review her application.

  • London Borough of Southwark (19 004 930)

    Statement Upheld Allocations 12-Mar-2020

    Summary: Miss B complains the Council failed to deal properly with her application for rehousing. The Ombudsman finds there was some fault by the Council in its handling of her housing application. Miss B was put to some time and trouble as a result. That was an injustice, for a which remedy has been agreed.

  • Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (18 010 671)

    Statement Upheld Allocations 12-Mar-2020

    Summary: Mr B complains about the actions taken by the Council in respect of an application for medical priority to obtain more suitable housing in the Council's area. We find the Council has not fully considered the extent of Mr B's health needs and the support his carer provides. But we also find Mr B has not given full information to support this process. The Council has agreed to obtain further evidence and carry out another review of his medical needs.

  • London Borough of Tower Hamlets (19 009 615)

    Statement Not upheld Allocations 12-Mar-2020

    Summary: Miss X disagrees with the Council's decision she is not homeless. Miss X can appeal this decision in the County Court so the Ombudsman will not investigate. The Council is not at fault for refusing Miss X's application to join its housing allocations scheme.

  • Luton Borough Council (19 003 941)

    Statement Not upheld Allocations 11-Mar-2020

    Summary: Mrs X complains the Council awarded the wrong priority banding meaning she was unable to bid on houses and has delayed a move. Mrs X's priority banding is correct based on her current, assessed needs and it has amended the mobility code. The mobility code does not affect priority and so has not prevented a move. The Council has used its professional judgement to make the decision only ground floor accommodation is suitable for Mrs X but there is no evidence of fault in how it reached that decision.