London Borough of Croydon (23 012 772)

Statement Upheld Allocations 12-Mar-2024

Summary: Mrs D complained the Council failed to properly consider her application to join the housing register. We find the Council was at fault for failing to properly consider Mrs D’s evidence and circumstances. It also delayed dealing with Mrs D’s housing application and her request for a review. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.

London Borough of Hackney (23 016 881)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Allocations 12-Mar-2024

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the wait for rehousing through the Council’s housing register. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant our involvement. We cannot investigate her complaint about disrepair because we cannot investigate a council’s actions when it is acting as a manager of social housing.

South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (23 016 393)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Allocations 10-Mar-2024

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 Southwark (23 007 695)

Statement Upheld Allocations 08-Mar-2024

Summary: Miss F complained the Council’s decision regarding her housing allocation priority was wrong and it took too long to review this decision when she appealed. We found delay which caused time and trouble to Miss F. The Council has agreed to apologise for this. There was no fault in the Council’s decision that Miss F is not statutorily overcrowded or in its decision that she does not require a move on medical grounds.

Stevenage Borough Council (23 017 171)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Allocations 07-Mar-2024

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council handled the complainant’s request for medical priority with her housing application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Royal Borough of Greenwich (23 002 357)

Statement Upheld Allocations 07-Mar-2024

Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council dealt with her housing case. There were faults by the Council in how it dealt with Miss X’s housing register priority banding, its complaint handling, and its poor communication with her. This caused Miss X injustice. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused.

London Borough of Camden (23 006 728)

Statement Upheld Allocations 07-Mar-2024

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with his housing allocation. We find the Council at fault for incorrectly backdating Mr X’s waiting time points and for failing to carry out a review of Mr X’s medical needs. We recommend the Council apologise to Mr X, progress his application, make a payment to recognise the injustice caused and act to prevent recurrence.

London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (23 012 483)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Allocations 07-Mar-2024

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council has dealt with a man’s housing case. This is because part of the complaint has been made late, other bodies are better placed to address some issues, and there is no sign of fault by the Council to justify our involvement about other matters.

London Borough of Redbridge (23 011 451)

Statement Upheld Allocations 07-Mar-2024

Summary: Mr X complained the Council has failed to properly consider his circumstances regarding his housing application. He also said the Council failed to respond to his complaint in a timely manner. We find the Council was at fault. This caused significant stress and uncertainty to Mr X. The Council has agreed to several recommendations to address this injustice caused by fault.

Birmingham City Council (23 012 030)

Statement Upheld Allocations 07-Mar-2024

Summary: The Council was at fault for delay completing a review of its decision Ms C did not qualify to join the housing register. The Council was at fault for failing to consider the information in Ms C’s review request as well as her application. The Council has agreed to apologise, backdate Ms C’s priority, and act to improve its services.