Private housing


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • London Borough of Camden (18 011 288)

    Statement Not upheld Private housing 26-Feb-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman found no corroborating evidence to make a finding of fault on Mr B's complaint about the Council misleading him about refunding the £600 fee he paid when it issued an improvement notice for various works needed to a property he owns. The only evidence is the word of Mr B and that of the officer. It was not fault for the officer to issue the notice. This is because of the severity of the hazards found, Mr B's attempts to negotiate about heaters, and the tenant family's vulnerability.

  • Suffolk County Council (18 003 899)

    Statement Upheld Private housing 25-Feb-2019

    Summary: Mr A's complains about how the Council handled his application to the warm homes scheme. The Ombudsman has found fault in how the Council dealt with the application. However, we consider the Council has already taken sufficient steps to put things right.

  • Broadland District Council (18 010 579)

    Statement Not upheld Private housing 15-Feb-2019

    Summary: Mr B complained the Council unreasonably pursued him about disrepair issues at a property he rents out, exaggerated the issues, failed to give him an opportunity to put his side and failed to consider his representations. There is no fault in how the Council dealt with this case.

  • West Lindsey District Council (18 009 461)

    Statement Not upheld Private housing 23-Jan-2019

    Summary: The Council was not at fault for serving an improvement notice or pursuing enforcement charges for defects it found with Mr B's rental property. The Ombudsman has found no evidence that Mr B was not given sufficient time to resolve issues before the Council took formal enforcement action against him.

  • London Borough of Ealing (18 003 363)

    Statement Upheld Private housing 10-Jan-2019

    Summary: Mr B complains the Council went back on an undertaking to make a second incentive payment to him as a landlord for renting his property to a tenant put forward by the Council. Had he known the Council would not make a second payment then he could have rented the property to a different local authority or rented the property privately and received a higher rent. The Council failed to provide information to landlords about the direct let scheme and gave incorrect information to Mr B. The Council has already apologised to Mr B and it will pay him £1933 within one month of the date of this decision.

  • Slough Borough Council (17 014 835)

    Statement Upheld Private housing 17-Dec-2018

    Summary: Mr B complained about the Council's handling of problems with the condition of his privately rented home. The Council did not deal properly with some points and did not communicate properly with Mr B. This caused Mr B avoidable uncertainty, time and trouble and some anxiety. To put matters right, the Council agreed actions including paying Mr B £500 and reviewing what happened here. However, we do not find the property's state of repair is likely to have been different because of the Council's faults.

  • Wiltshire Council (18 009 287)

    Statement Not upheld Private housing 12-Dec-2018

    Summary: Mrs X complains the Council refuses to remove an improvement notice against her property even though she has met the notice's requirements. There was no fault in the Council's actions.

  • Thanet District Council (17 019 690)

    Statement Upheld Private housing 08-Nov-2018

    Summary: There is no evidence of fault with the Council's inspections of disrepair issues or in its enforcement of selective licensing conditions. But, at times, its communication with Mrs X should have been clearer. The Council should have also taken a homelessness application earlier.

  • Kent County Council (17 011 500)

    Statement Not upheld Private housing 30-Oct-2018

    Summary: Mr B has complained that he has been left without affordable heating because of the way the Council and its contractor handled his application for a grant to replace his gas heating. The Ombudsman does not consider that there was any significant fault in the way the Council dealt with the application.

  • London Borough of Croydon (18 002 685)

    Statement Not upheld Private housing 20-Sep-2018

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council supported him to move into a property it knew to be uninhabitable, and refused to act against the landlords. The Council is not at fault. The Council's discretionary housing payment team was unaware the property was uninhabitable. Once the Council was aware of the issues it made Mr X several offers to support with a move out of the property and carried out a suitable investigation into Mr X's landlord.

;