Other

Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • London Borough of Bromley (18 004 089)

    Statement Upheld Other 10-Dec-2018

    Summary: Mrs B complains the Council did not ensure the provider of temporary accommodation kept to the terms of the agreement she had with the Council for the payment of all utilities. Mrs B complained to the Property Ombudsman, had to pay extra for her utility supplies, and had time and trouble in resolving the matter. There was fault by the Council in the license agreement it had with Mrs B for the provision of temporary accommodation as it did not make clear the payment for utilities would be capped. There was fault by the Agent acting on behalf of the Council in paying for utilities. The Council should pay Mrs B £200 within one month of the date of the final decision. It will also undertake an affordability assessment of the property based on information provided by Mrs B.

  • London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (18 005 760)

    Statement Upheld Other 26-Nov-2018

    Summary: Ms X complains that insulation works were carried out on her property despite her withdrawing her consent. Ms X says that this has caused her distress and has made her property unbearably hot. The Ombudsman finds there was some fault in the Council's communication about the insulation scheme, which it has apologised for. It appears the Ombudsman cannot consider the actions of the contractors who were responsible for the works because they were not acting on behalf of the Council.

  • Torridge District Council (18 003 811)

    Statement Not upheld Other 06-Nov-2018

    Summary: the Council was not at fault and responsible for the financial losses Mrs X suffered when her former tenant failed to pay rent and caused damage to her property.

  • London Borough of Newham (18 006 164)

    Statement Not upheld Other 19-Oct-2018

    Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to meet her special requirements at a meeting, resulting in her becoming unwell and needing to go to hospital. She also says the Council failed to adequately investigate the matter. I have decided to discontinue my investigation. The Ombudsman cannot decide if the Council is legally liable to compensate Ms X; only the courts can.

  • London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (17 010 003)

    Statement Upheld Other 04-Oct-2018

    Summary: The Ombudsman found fault by the Council on Mr F's complaint about it delaying the sale of the property it jointly owned with him by about 7 months. The Council raised his expectation that he would receive £1,000 for delays and poor communication. It later told him it previously deducted this from its invoice but failed to provide evidence. The avoidable injustice caused was remedied by it agreeing to apologise, pay the sum offered or the amount he paid for outgoings whichever was higher, pay him £300, and carry out reviews to learn from its failures.

  • 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.

  • Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (18 004 142)

    Statement Upheld Other 02-Aug-2018

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about damage caused to the complainant's fence. This is because the Council has agreed to repair the fence.

  • 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.

;