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.

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.

West Northamptonshire Council (25 019 485)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Allocations 25-May-2026

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to award Miss Y a higher banding for housing allocations. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Eastleigh Borough Council (25 021 434)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Allocations 21-May-2026

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to amend its original decision on Mr X’s relative’s application to join the Housing Register. This is because there is no evidence of a significant injustice.

Birmingham City Council (25 022 776)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Allocations 21-May-2026

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about repairs and a housing application banding decision. We have no remit to consider complaints about the Council’s role as a provider of social housing. And it would be reasonable for Miss X to ask the Council to reassess her banding decision.

Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (25 009 843)

Statement Upheld Allocations 21-May-2026

Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed her housing application and failed to communicate, leaving her and her child, Y, in unsuitable accommodation. There was fault in the Council’s actions which caused Miss X distress, uncertainty, inconvenience, and time and trouble. The Council agreed recommended actions to remedy the injustice.