Other


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Thurrock Council (17 017 571)

    Statement Not upheld Other 10-Aug-2018

    Summary: The Council was not at fault in how it acted on Mr B's concerns about the condition and occupancy of his neighbour's property. It conducted an inspection visit in line with its statutory responsibilities, but decided not to enforce formal remedial action against the landlord. This was the Council's decision to make. I have not found fault with how it made the decision, so I cannot question the decision itself.

  • Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (17 017 248)

    Statement Not upheld Other 30-Jul-2018

    Summary: there was no fault in the way the Council considered Mrs X's appeal against its decision to seek repayment of a Renovation Grant paid to her father.

  • Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (17 007 289)

    Statement Not upheld Other 01-Jun-2018

    Summary: Mr B complains that the Council has not provided him with permanent accommodation after he had to move out of his home because of the Grenfell Tower fire. The Council was not at fault for the way it responded to Mr B's request for rehousing. Also, the Grenfell Recovery Taskforce is in the best position to continue to scrutinise the Council's rehousing of affected residents.

  • Norwich City Council (17 000 279)

    Statement Upheld Other 15-Mar-2018

    Summary: The Council as landlord should have taken responsibility for ensuring that certain disrepairs on a property (property Y) were carried out. To remedy fault causing Miss D injustice the Ombudsman recommended and the Council agreed to make an acknowledgement payment for distress and inconvenience caused by having to live in a property with significant outstanding disrepair. This payment takes the form of writing off Miss D's debt associated with the tenancy.

  • London Borough of Sutton (17 007 823)

    Statement Upheld Other 27-Feb-2018

    Summary: The Council appropriately investigated Ms B's enforcement complaints and where there is no evidence of fault the Ombudsman will not challenge the Council's professional judgement. But the Council's communication with Ms B has been poor. It also failed to maintain a homeless hostel garden in line with its handbook. This has caused Ms B some frustration, distress and time and trouble which the Council has agreed to remedy.

  • Arun District Council (17 007 133)

    Statement Not upheld Other 20-Feb-2018

    Summary: I have found no evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with complaints of antisocial behaviour from a Council property.

  • London Borough of Lambeth (17 005 757)

    Statement Upheld Other 19-Dec-2017

    Summary: There were significant delays in the Council processing
    Ms X's application to purchase redundant space within her flat. There was also fault in the way the Council calculated the value of the space. The Council's valuation of the space increased when it changed its policy. Were it not for the delays Ms X would have been able to complete the purchase before the Council changed its policy. The Ombudsman recommends the Council carry out a new valuation of the property based on 2015 property values and based on criteria in its previous policy.

  • London Borough of Lewisham (17 003 363)

    Statement Upheld Other 15-Dec-2017

    Summary: The Council failed to tell a homeless applicant the outcome of its inquiries; that he was not in priority need and not eligible for assistance. The Council failed to respond to requests for help with the removal and storage of belongings. The Council had no duty to help but should have told the applicant that information. The Council will apologise and consider improvements to its practice.

  • Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (17 009 601)

    Statement Not upheld Other 20-Nov-2017

    Summary: I have ended my investigation into Mr B's complaint that the Council housing department and the Council Leader did not respond to his emails about matters related to the Grenfell Tower fire. This is because Mr B did not suffer a significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault by the Council. Also, because of the offensive language used by Mr B, the Council Leader was entitled not to respond to his emails.

  • Stroud District Council (16 018 848)

    Statement Not upheld Other 20-Oct-2017

    Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council dealt with a claim by Mr X's landlord on his rent deposit bond.

;