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.


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • 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.

  • Central Bedfordshire Council (21 008 580)

    Statement Not upheld Allocations 23-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mr B complained about the way the Council considered his request to join the housing register. He considered the Council's refusal to allow him to apply for a larger property meant he could not progress with his plans to foster children. There was no fault by the Council

  • Wiltshire Council (21 009 699)

    Statement Upheld Allocations 23-Mar-2022

    Summary: Ms M complains, on behalf of three young adults, the Council gave them misleading advice about applying for social housing. The Council was at fault as it failed to manage their expectations about the likely success of their application given restrictions imposed by local housing providers. It failed to proactively address why they were not being considered for properties and to ensure they understood this. The Council has agreed to make a payment to remedy the distress and frustration this caused them. It has also agreed to review its procedures to be clearer about the likely success of applications from unrelated adults.

  • Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (21 003 610)

    Statement Upheld Allocations 22-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mrs B says the Council wrongly refused to allow her to bid on bungalows when her family needs one on medical grounds, delayed arranging occupational therapy assessment and failed to properly consider her circumstances. The Council failed to carry out some of the assessments properly and delayed completing an occupational therapy assessment in 2021. An apology and payment to Mrs B is satisfactory remedy.

  • Birmingham City Council (21 002 109)

    Statement Upheld Allocations 22-Mar-2022

    Summary: The Council wrongly offered Mr B the tenancy of a property and then failed to promptly inform him that the offer had been withdrawn, and the reasons it had been withdrawn. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B and to take action to prevent similar failings in future.

  • Birmingham City Council (21 004 031)

    Statement Not upheld Allocations 22-Mar-2022

    Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council decided that Mr B did not qualify to join the housing register.