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:

  • 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.

  • London Borough of Ealing (20 004 878)

    Statement Upheld COVID-19 13-Jul-2021

    Summary: The Council was at fault for not sending Mr X its homeless decision in writing, causing him to lose his right to ask for a review. It should reissue its decision, giving him a fresh right of review should he wish to challenge it. The Council was not at fault for evicting Mr X from hotel accommodation provided under the Everyone In initiative in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

  • City of York Council (20 009 245)

    Statement Upheld COVID-19 21-Jun-2021

    Summary: Miss X complained about the way the Council handled her homelessness applications, the cost of emergency accommodation provided during the COVID-19 pandemic and its housing register decision. The Council was at fault for not reviewing its housing register decision when Miss X provided further information in February 2020. It should apologise and carry out a review of that decision.

  • South Northamptonshire District Council (20 008 716)

    Statement Upheld COVID-19 21-Jun-2021

    Summary: On the basis of information seen, there was no fault in the way the Council handled Mr X's temporary accommodation from late March 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic. It was at fault for not informing him of the service charges for alternative accommodation provided in early July 2020, for which it has apologised and waived the charges. This was an appropriate remedy.

  • London Borough of Brent (20 000 450)

    Statement Upheld COVID-19 24-Mar-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained about the standard of accommodation the Council provided during the COVID-19 pandemic, and about failings in the way it handled his homelessness application. The Council was at fault for a delay in responding to Mr X's concerns about the accommodation, which it later accepted fell below its standards. It was also at fault for failing to review its decision that Mr X was not in priority need. It has already apologised, made a payment of £500 and taken action to prevent recurrence so no further recommendations are needed.

  • Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (20 005 117)

    Statement Not upheld COVID-19 18-Nov-2020

    Summary: Mr X complained about a lack of support from the Council when he was homeless during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Council was not at fault.