Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • London Borough of Ealing (17 015 980)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 13-Feb-2018

    Summary: The Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to consider Miss X's complaint about the way the Council dealt with her mother's mutual housing exchange.

  • Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (17 011 114)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 08-Feb-2018

    Summary: The Ombudsman cannot challenge the Council's refusal to grant Mr X an Empty Homes Loan. This is because Mr X is taking his complaint to court.

  • London Borough of Southwark (17 010 905)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 07-Feb-2018

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B's complaint about damage to his possessions which he claims was due to damp and mould in his Council owned property. This is because it is outside the Ombudsman's jurisdiction.

  • Boston Borough Council (17 015 053)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 01-Feb-2018

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs B's complaint about the actions of a council officer and the effect they continue to have on the actions of other organisations and individuals. We could not now effectively investigate what happened more than three years ago and there is no evidence to support Mrs B's claims.

  • Derbyshire Dales District Council (17 013 749)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 05-Jan-2018

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr and Mrs K's complaint the Council failed properly to consider their request to waive a restrictive covenant on a former council property. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and it is not open to us to criticise the merits of the Council's decision itself without evidence of fault, so an investigation is not warranted

  • 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.

  • Brighton & Hove City Council (17 012 811)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 07-Dec-2017

    Summary: We will not investigate Mr A's complaint about replacement flooring. We will not investigate a complaint about the way the Council has dealt with the matter when we are not investigating the decision on Mr A's insurance claim or the Council's management of leasehold properties.

  • London Borough of Haringey (17 011 991)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 27-Nov-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about the problems the complainant had in relation to a neighbouring property which is occupied by a Council tenant. This is because the Ombudsman has no power to investigate a council when it is acting as a landlord.

  • 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.