Allocations

Westminster City Council (19 000 158)

Statement Upheld Allocations 18-Nov-2019

Summary: Ms B complains about how the Council dealt with her niece's temporary housing needs as a homeless person with young children. The Ombudsman finds that while there was no fault in the substantive issue of the accommodation offered and the reviews of suitability conducted, there were several other failings in the Council's handling of this case and the complaint about it. The Council has agreed to the Ombudsman's recommendation for remedy for the injustice caused to Ms B and her niece by these failings.

London Borough of Brent (19 002 229)

Statement Upheld Allocations 14-Nov-2019

Summary: The Council has no evidence it considered medical evidence provided by a housing applicant in support of his request for the Council to allow him to bid for three-bedroom properties. The Council failed to review its decision despite requests by the applicant, a Councillor and an MP. The Council has caused serious unavoidable frustration, distress and time and trouble for the applicant. The Council will apologise to the applicant, carry out a proper review and make a payment to him for the injustice it caused.

Bournemouth Borough Council (18 013 903)

Statement Not upheld Allocations 05-Nov-2019

Summary: Ms C complained about how the Council considered her housing application, meaning she has continued to live in unsuitable accommodation. However, there is no evidence of fault in how the Council considered the matters raised by Ms C.

London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (18 016 920)

Statement Upheld Allocations 04-Nov-2019

Summary: The Council wrongly changed Ms X's housing priority, for which it apologised. However, neither the change of housing priority nor the information the Council provided about waiting times, led Ms X to miss an offer for suitable permanent housing.

Dartford Borough Council (18 019 513)

Statement Upheld Allocations 04-Nov-2019

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not allocate her a property she bid on and has given conflicting information about what type of property she is eligible for. There is no fault in the way the Council handled Mrs X's housing application or allocated the property concerned. There is fault in the way the Council handled Mrs X's complaint as it referred her to the wrong Ombudsman scheme.

Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (19 002 367)

Statement Upheld Allocations 31-Oct-2019

Summary: Miss X complains about the Council's handling of her housing application. She says the Council has not properly considered her health and safety because it has decided she is suitable for a property within a lifted building. She also complains the Council will not let her bid on three-bedroom properties and does not assign appropriate accessible categories to its properties. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for failing to properly consider whether properties within lifted buildings are suitable for Miss X. However, the fault did not cause any injustice. We do not find fault with the Council for its other actions.

Maidstone Borough Council (19 008 436)

Statement Not upheld Allocations 31-Oct-2019

Summary: Mr C complains about how the Council terminated his interim accommodation and how it subsequently managed his housing register application and a subsequent bid for a property. However, there is no evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with any of the matters raised by Mr C.

Maidstone Borough Council (19 002 864)

Statement Not upheld Allocations 31-Oct-2019

Summary: Mr C complains about how the Council terminated his interim accommodation and how it subsequently managed his housing register application and a subsequent bid for a property. However, there is no evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with any of the matters raised by Mr C.

London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (18 011 631)

Statement Upheld Allocations 30-Oct-2019

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council handled his housing application. The Ombudsman finds the Council was at fault for delay in assessing the housing application, failing to assess medical evidence, failing to take a homeless application and failing to evidence its view that it was reasonable to expect Mr X to continue to occupy his current accommodation. The Council has now offered
Mr X accommodation which it considers ends its homeless relief duty to him. It has also agreed to assess Mr X's medical evidence and pay him £450 to acknowledge the effect of the Council's initial delay and the uncertainty, frustration and distress caused by its subsequent failures.

Breckland District Council (18 017 805)

Statement Upheld Allocations 29-Oct-2019

Summary: The complainant says the Council failed to properly consider his housing application. The Council says it may have delayed consideration of the complainant's application by up to two months, but the onus is on the applicant to provide information in support of housing need and priority. Once it had the necessary information the Council says it increased priority to the highest band. The Ombudsman finds the Council acted with fault.