Recent statements in this category are shown below:
Statement Not upheld Other 16-May-2019
Summary: The Ombudsman found no fault by the Council on Mr G's complaint about the way the Council acted about his long-term empty property which neighbours complained about. The Council warned him about works needed, gave him options, and arranged necessary works which it charged him for. It also followed its complaints procedure.
Statement Upheld Other 29-Mar-2019
Summary: The Council repeatedly sent correspondence to Mr X about a property he owned when he had notified it to send correspondence to the managing agents he had instructed to look after the property. The Council also incorrectly disclosed his name and address to his tenant. The Council was at fault and it has agreed to apologise to Mr X and pay him £100 to reflect his time and trouble and for the frustration caused.
Statement Not upheld Other 07-Mar-2019
Summary: In 2010 the Council introduced a tenant to a landlord and provided a loan to the tenant for a deposit. In 2015 the tenant stopped paying rent. The landlord took legal action to evict the tenant. The Council is not at fault for the tenant's failure to pay rent, her damage to the property and the legal costs of evicting her.
Statement Not upheld Other 05-Feb-2019
Summary: There is no fault in the Council's actions when Miss X applied to purchase a property through its Low Cost Housing Scheme. The Council is not responsible for providing financial advice or recommending a lender who may lend against properties under the scheme. The decision to grant a mortgage on a property lies with the lender and not the Council.
Statement Not upheld Other 29-Jan-2019
Summary: The complaint is about the way the Council has dealt with a disabled facilities grant application, housing disrepair and an application to its housing register. The Ombudsman's view is there is no evidence of fault.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.