Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • North Lincolnshire Council (18 004 874)

    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.

  • Chorley Borough Council (18 002 990)

    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.

  • Kettering Borough Council (17 006 754)

    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.

  • 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.