Nottingham City Council (21 006 621)

Statement Not upheld Allocations 10-Mar-2022

Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council has not yet rehoused her when she has an urgent need to move for medical and welfare reasons. We found the delay is not due to fault by the Council.

Luton Borough Council (21 008 914)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Allocations 10-Mar-2022

Summary: We have no jurisdiction to investigate Mr B’s this complaint about the way the Council dealt with his requests for a review of is decision on his son’s housing application. That is because he has started court proceedings.

London Borough of Hillingdon (21 009 769)

Statement Upheld Allocations 07-Mar-2022

Summary: Miss X complains the Council has not assessed her housing priority properly. The Council did not consider all information when it assessed her family’s medical circumstances. Miss X was allocated a lower priority band and missed opportunities to be rehoused. The Council has already backdated Miss X’s housing priority. It has also agreed to apologise and pay her £1000 for distress and inconvenience.

Wychavon District Council (21 016 566)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Allocations 04-Mar-2022

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Miss X’s housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

London Borough of Merton (21 000 548)

Statement Not upheld Allocations 04-Mar-2022

Summary: There is no fault in the Council’s decisions on a housing transfer application. When Miss X supplied more evidence the Council’s increased her medical priority but there is no evidence that it should have backdated the decisions. It is not possible to reach a decision on what happened on a social workers visit, as it was a private meeting and the accounts do not agree.

Birmingham City Council (21 004 284)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Allocations 04-Mar-2022

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s homeless application in 2018. which was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision not to accept his later application to the Housing Register.

Birmingham City Council (21 005 014)

Statement Upheld Allocations 04-Mar-2022

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to allocate her and her children a property and improperly lowered her housing band priority status on several occasions. She said this situation caused her and family distress and upset. There was fault when the Council reduced Miss X’s housing priority band status incorrectly. There is no evidence this fault negatively affected Miss X.

London Borough of Enfield (21 001 843)

Statement Upheld Allocations 03-Mar-2022

Summary: Miss X complained about the failure to make a safeguarding referral, the priority awarded to her Housing Register application and poor conditions in her temporary accommodation. We found the Council has taken satisfactory steps to improve safeguarding procedures and staff training following the concerns Miss X reported. We did not find fault in the way it assessed her priority on the Housing Register. There was fault in the way the Council responded to reports of a mice infestation in her temporary accommodation. We have completed the investigation because the Council accepted our findings and agreed to provide a suitable remedy for the nuisance and inconvenience this caused.

London Borough of Croydon (21 007 124)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Allocations 03-Mar-2022

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has not provided the complainant with suitable housing even though she has been on the housing register for seven years. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Norwich City Council (21 000 568)

Statement Upheld Allocations 02-Mar-2022

Summary: Ms X complained that the Council failed to act on further requests she made for homelessness assistance. We found its failure to respond to her emails was fault. However we cannot say if the Council would have decided there were new facts since it made the previous homelessness decision which would have required it to take a new application. The injustice to Ms X is therefore limited to frustration and uncertainty about the outcome. We did not find fault in the way the Council assessed Ms X’s priority on the Housing Register. The Council has satisfactorily addressed Ms X’s concern that staff may have had unauthorised access to her records and dealt with her request for a reasonable adjustment.