London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (25 002 702)

Report Upheld Allocations 04-Jun-2026

Summary: We found the Council failed to properly explain to Mr X its decision about his priority banding. The Council failed to inform Mr X of his right to request a review of this decision. It then took too long to re-consider its decision when challenged which was fault. The Council was at fault for not carrying out homeless inquiries when informed Mr X’s property was no longer suitable to occupy. It also delayed carrying out an Occupational Therapy (OT) assessment. This has caused Mr X distress, frustration and uncertainty.

London Borough of Haringey (25 010 698)

Statement Upheld Allocations 02-Jun-2026

Summary: Miss F complained about the Council’s handling of her housing register application. The Council delayed responding to her request for a reassessment which caused distress. The Council has already apologised for this which remedies the injustice caused. We found no fault in the rest of the complaint.

Buckinghamshire Council (25 010 193)

Statement Upheld Allocations 01-Jun-2026

Summary: We found fault by the Council on Mr Y’s complaint about it failing to place him in the correct banding under its housing allocation scheme when he joined its housing register. It failed to promptly award his correct priority date and delayed deciding it owed him the main housing duty on his homeless application. There was no outstanding injustice caused.

London Borough of Camden (24 020 555)

Statement Upheld Allocations 31-May-2026

Summary: Ms D complains the Council failed to assess her medical and welfare needs for her housing register account. I have found fault by the Council because it failed to document what evidence had been considered during its reviews and Ms D was caused avoidable delays. The Council has apologised and offered to pay Ms D redress and to carry out a new review.

London Borough of Brent (25 006 002)

Statement Upheld Allocations 27-May-2026

Summary: The Council was at fault for how it handled Ms X’s homelessness application. The Council did not secure temporary accommodation until the day she was evicted then offered her temporary accommodation which was unsuitable for her household. This caused distress and meant Ms X and her family had to live in unsuitable accommodation. To remedy the injustice caused the Council agreed to apologise and make payments to Ms X for the time spent in unsuitable accommodation and for the distress caused by her eviction.

Canterbury City Council (25 027 619)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Allocations 26-May-2026

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.

Epping Forest District Council (25 022 960)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Allocations 26-May-2026

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision on Miss X’s priority for social housing. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify our involvement.

Rochford District Council (25 011 361)

Statement Upheld Allocations 26-May-2026

Summary: We found no fault on Miss Y’s complaint about the Council failing to assess her medical needs and information. There was fault in failing to tell her it had suspended medical assessments with the introduction of its new housing allocation scheme. There was also fault in the way it dealt with her formal complaint. The apologies the Council gave remedied the injustice these failures caused.

London Borough of Croydon (25 012 159)

Statement Upheld Allocations 26-May-2026

Summary: Mrs D complains the Council delayed processing and failed to correctly assess her housing register application. I have found the Council at fault. There were significant delays and the review decision fails to explain how evidence was considered. This meant Mrs D was caused avoidable distress and left uncertain about whether her circumstances had been properly assessed. The Council has already agreed to carry out a new assessment and it will pay Mrs D redress for the delay.

Birmingham City Council (25 004 317)

Statement Upheld Allocations 25-May-2026

Summary: There was fault by the Council in how it dealt with Mr X’s housing situation. It took too long to assess Mr X’s change in circumstances and to ask him for proof that he was the primary carer for all his children. Its communication was also confusing. The Council’s failings caused Mr X distress, confusion, and frustration. The Council has delivered training and improved its guidance to its staff. It will also apologise to Mr X and make him a symbolic payment.