Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Hastings Borough Council (20 002 818)

    Statement Not upheld Allocations 07-May-2021

    Summary: We have found no fault with the Council for the way it considered Ms X's occupational therapy reports in 2017 and 2019 when reaching a decision on her housing priority banding. We have found no fault with how the Council has handled Ms X's housing need. We have not upheld Ms X's complaint.

  • Stevenage Borough Council (20 009 632)

    Statement Upheld Allocations 07-May-2021

    Summary: Mr B complains the Council did not deal with his housing application properly. The Council was at fault because it did not consider Mr B's medical circumstances, offer him a review of its decision, provide information or assess his homelessness situation. The Council has agreed to reconsider Mr B's application, review its decision making process, issue guidance to staff, review its decision letters and offer a review to other housing applicants over the past 12 months.

  • Babergh District Council (20 008 155)

    Statement Not upheld Allocations 07-May-2021

    Summary: Mrs C complained about the Council's decision to drop her housing band after a change in her circumstances and about the suitability of temporary accommodation it offered her. We find the Council acted in line with its allocation policy, and was not at fault.

  • Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (20 009 173)

    Statement Upheld Allocations 30-Apr-2021

    Summary: Mrs B complained the Council wrongly told her she was not entitled to a two-bedroom house with a garden, and it communicated with her poorly. The Council was at fault for failing to keep accurate records of Mrs B's housing need. It was also at fault for failing to respond to her concerns in a timely manner. The Council agreed make a payment to acknowledge the distress it caused Mrs B and the time and trouble she had in bringing her concerns to its attention.

  • Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (19 018 540)

    Statement Upheld Allocations 30-Apr-2021

    Summary: There was fault by the Council. It decided that it should take a homeless application from Miss B but took too long to do this, despite Miss B's physical and mental ill health. The Council provided interim accommodation during this time but the delay and uncertainty caused Miss B distress. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss B and make a payment to her in recognition of the distress it caused. The Council has also agreed to review whether Miss B's current accommodation is suitable.

  • Wychavon District Council (20 006 274)

    Statement Upheld Allocations 30-Apr-2021

    Summary: The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council for how it reached its decision to award a housing allocation band. However, the Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for how it communicated with the complainant about its decision. This caused confusion and distress to the complainant.

  • Rochford District Council (20 004 725)

    Statement Upheld Allocations 30-Apr-2021

    Summary: Ms D complains the Council failed to allocate her a property near family members in 2020. The Ombudsman has found evidence of fault by the Council in that it did not communicate clearly with Ms D. He has upheld the complaint, because of this fault, and completed the investigation because the Council has offered its apologies.

  • Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (20 004 180)

    Statement Upheld Allocations 29-Apr-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained that the Council did not properly consider his application to join the Housing Register and wrongly decided he did not qualify. We found fault because the Council only considered his medical need for rehousing and did not assess whether he may qualify for reasonable preference on welfare grounds. The Council accepted our findings and agreed to provide a suitable remedy.

  • London Borough of Hillingdon (20 009 330)

    Statement Upheld Allocations 23-Apr-2021

    Summary: Mrs X complains that the Council has not dealt with her application for housing properly. The Council is at fault because it did not considered Mrs X's medical circumstances properly. The Council has already agreed it will review Mrs X's medical priority. If the review enhances Mrs X's priority, the Council should backdate this award to October 2019 and pay her £250 for distress.

  • City of York Council (19 010 970)

    Statement Upheld Allocations 22-Apr-2021

    Summary: The Ombudsman found fault by the Council on Miss Q's complaint about its failure to protect her as a vulnerable person from 2 tenants it moved close to her after it had moved her away from them. It failed to: consider exercising discretion to prevent their move; warn her of the move; show contact with the police or tenants. When moving her again, it failed to weigh its duty of confidentiality to her new abusive neighbour against her need to make an informed decision about whether to accept the tenancy. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Privacy settings

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.