Royal Borough of Greenwich (21 010 954)

Statement Not upheld Allocations 12-Apr-2022

Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council did not agree with her request for a house on medical grounds. She said it was essential for her child's medical needs. We did not find fault with the Council's actions and we note that the policy has now changed so Mrs B can bid for houses.

London Borough of Wandsworth (21 018 881)

Statement Upheld Allocations 12-Apr-2022

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's failure to compensate Mr X for applying an incorrect date to his housing application. Any investigation would not lead to a different outcome because the Council did not cause Mr X significant injustice. We would also not be able to achieve the outcome he would like.

Middlesbrough Borough Council (21 005 776)

Statement Upheld Allocations 11-Apr-2022

Summary: A housing association, acting on behalf of the Council, delayed making necessary changes to Ms X's housing application. This is fault. The Council is also at fault because it failed to keep records in line with its data retention policy. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay Ms X £300, and take action to improve its service.

London Borough of Tower Hamlets (21 006 705)

Statement Upheld Allocations 10-Apr-2022

Summary: Ms C complained the Council failed to rehouse her despite her urgent need to move, misunderstood the occupational therapy recommendation, failed to consider her medical evidence, denied offering her a property when it had done so, delayed considering her complaint, failed to properly address the complaint and wrongly amended her bidding date. There was some miscommunication about the occupational therapy recommendation but that did not affect Ms C securing a property and there were issues not addressed in the complaint response. There is no evidence of fault in the rest of the complaint. An apology and payment to Ms C is satisfactory remedy.

Test Valley Borough Council (21 013 769)

Statement Not upheld Allocations 06-Apr-2022

Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council made its decision not to allow him to join the housing register. The Council has now added Mr X to the housing register and backdated his registration date. We have discontinued our investigation as we are unlikely to achieve anything further.

City of York Council (21 007 546)

Statement Upheld Allocations 04-Apr-2022

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to consider all her circumstances when determining her rehousing band, in particular the impact on her mental health. The re-banding decision was made on behalf of the Council by one of its partners. The Council is unable to demonstrate all evidence was taken into consideration which is fault. The Council has now given Ms X gold priority banding which is a suitable remedy.

Sheffield City Council (21 009 804)

Statement Not upheld Allocations 03-Apr-2022

Summary: We stopped investigating Miss X's complaint about how the Council considered whether to award priority on the housing register. This is because changes in Miss X's circumstances since she complained mean there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by further investigation.

London Borough of Tower Hamlets (21 006 331)

Statement Upheld Allocations 29-Mar-2022

Summary: Mr X complains the Council rejected his application for the housing register and did not correctly apply its allocations policy. This meant his application was refused rather than assessed. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for how it handled communication about Mr X's application and his complaint. The Council has agreed to pay financial remedy in recognition of the distress caused to Mr X and consider service improvements. The Ombudsman does not fault with the Council for how its allocation policy was applied.

London Borough of Wandsworth (21 006 909)

Statement Not upheld Allocations 27-Mar-2022

Summary: Mrs Y complains about the length of time she has been in Band A under the Council's housing allocations scheme. We do not find the Council at fault for not making an offer of housing. It has followed its housing allocations scheme and given the application a high priority. It has not made an offer due to the shortage of accommodation.

Birmingham City Council (20 011 188)

Statement Upheld Allocations 25-Mar-2022

Summary: The Council has failed in its statutory duty to ensure the accommodation it provides for Mrs B's household is suitable. The Council also failed to properly consider whether Mrs B's son needed his own room for medical reasons and fettered its discretion when it decided not to allow Mrs B to bid on smaller properties. The Council also delayed reviewing the suitability of Mrs B's accommodation, delayed reviewing Mrs B's housing priority and delayed dealing with her complaints. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Mrs B, offer Mrs B suitable temporary accommodation, consider allowing Mrs B to bid on smaller properties and to take action to prevent similar failings in future.