London Borough of Lambeth (23 008 126)

Statement Upheld Covid-19 02-Apr-2024

Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council decided it would not offer him accommodation while he was homeless. The Council took too long to act when it owed Mr X the relief duty and too long to decide whether to offer Mr X interim accommodation. This caused Mr X frustration and uncertainty for which the Council will apologise.

Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (22 011 696)

Statement Not upheld Covid-19 23-Apr-2023

Summary: Miss X complained about the provider of temporary accommodation on behalf of the Council, and about the Council’s handling of her housing register application. The Council was not at fault.

London Borough of Tower Hamlets (21 015 477)

Statement Upheld Covid-19 02-Apr-2023

Summary: Mr Y complained about the Council’s lack of assistance with his homelessness. The Council was at fault for a failure to progress the homelessness case and issue appropriate decision letters between August 2020 and February 2021. The Council also failed to make proper enquiries about Mr Y’s caring responsibilities in that period but this did not affect the outcome. The Council said it would apologise and pay Mr Y £750 to remedy the frustration and uncertainty caused, which is an appropriate remedy.

London Borough of Ealing (22 004 948)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Covid-19 28-Nov-2022

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Miss X’s housing. We have already dealt with the complaint about the suitability of the current temporary accommodation. Miss X could reasonably have taken court action about the suitability of another property the Council offered, and that part of the complaint is also late. The Council no longer owes Miss X a homelessness duty so no longer needs to provide accommodation. Any allegation the Council has adversely affected Miss X’s health is appropriately for the courts.

Greater London Authority (21 006 648)

Statement Upheld Covid-19 18-Aug-2022

Summary: Ms X complained about the service she received during the COVID-19 pandemic from a homelessness charity (the Charity) acting on behalf of the Council. The Charity has already upheld, or partially upheld some of Ms X’s complaints and apologised for the injustice this caused her. It has also explained to her what it will do to prevent a similar reoccurrence. These were appropriate actions to take and further investigation would achieve nothing further.

Milton Keynes Council (21 002 400)

Statement Upheld Covid-19 01-Feb-2022

Summary: Mr X complained about a lack of support from the Council with his homelessness, causing him distress. The Council was at fault for not properly communicating with him about COVID-19 vaccination programme. It has already apologised for the distress caused, which is an appropriate remedy. It was also at fault for providing inconsistent information about the powers under which it offered interim accommodation but this did not cause Mr X an injustice. It was not at fault for offering interim accommodation outside its area.

Liverpool City Council (21 005 756)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Covid-19 07-Jan-2022

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the housing support provided to her by the Council. This is because we consider it unlikely an investigation would find fault by the Council. In addition, Miss X has a right of appeal by which she can challenge the decision to detain her under the Mental Health Act 1983.

London Borough of Lambeth (20 011 283)

Statement Upheld Covid-19 25-Nov-2021

Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to provide comprehensive advice and information about Mrs X’s housing situation, failing to make a direct offer of housing in line with its letter to Mrs X, delays in dealing with the case and unfairly raising Mrs X’s expectations about a property she viewed. It should apologise, and pay her £2,000 for the frustration and uncertainty caused, and the time and trouble pursuing the Council over many months. It should also review its processes to avoid a recurrence of these faults.

Liverpool City Council (21 000 051)

Statement Upheld Covid-19 28-Oct-2021

Summary: The Council was at fault for not communicating clearly with Mrs X about a complaint it had received about a property she managed and about a proposed inspection of that property, including its approach to safety in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. It should apologise. It was not at fault for deciding to carry out the inspection nor for initially proposing to issue a licence for the property for 12 months only.

London Borough of Southwark (20 007 548)

Statement Upheld Covid-19 23-Jul-2021

Summary: The accommodation provider, acting on behalf of the Council, was at fault for destroying Ms X’s belongings but has made an appropriate payment to remedy this. The Council was not at fault for deciding Ms X was not in priority need, nor for evicting her in late February 2020, which was shortly before the national lockdown in response to COVID-19.