Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • London Borough of Newham (17 002 532)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Allocations 19-Jun-2017

    Summary: We will not investigate Mr B's complaint about the housing priority the Council has awarded him. The Council is carrying out a review of its decision and it is reasonable to expect Mr B to await the outcome of this review.

  • London Borough Of Brent (16 005 272)

    Statement Not upheld Allocations 19-Jun-2017

    Summary: the Council properly considered the medical and other evidence Miss X provided in support of her application to move to a larger property. So the Ombudsman cannot criticise the Council's decision not to give Miss X higher priority for a move.

  • London Borough of Hillingdon (16 017 226)

    Statement Not upheld Allocations 15-Jun-2017

    Summary: When the Council reviewed the details of Ms X's housing register application it noticed a discrepancy in the accuracy of information relating to requirements for a 10 year local connection. The Council asked Ms X to provide additional information about this. When she did not provide this the Council removed her from its housing register. There is no fault in the Council's actions.

  • Chichester District Council (16 013 730)

    Statement Not upheld Allocations 15-Jun-2017

    Summary: Mr X and his family moved to the Council's area to be near his son's special school. The Council properly considered the information Mr X provided in support of his housing register application, including information about his son's complex needs. Mr X may make a claim to the County Court if he thinks the Council failed to meet its public sector equality duty.

  • Bedford Borough Council (16 018 121)

    Statement Not upheld Allocations 12-Jun-2017

    Summary: There was no fault by the Council in its consideration of Miss B's application to join the housing register.

  • Southampton City Council (16 014 299)

    Statement Upheld Allocations 09-Jun-2017

    Summary: The Council failed to properly assess Mr X's housing need in response to his request for unconventional adaptations. An appropriate remedy for his complaint is agreed.

  • West Lancashire Borough Council (16 016 481)

    Statement Not upheld Allocations 08-Jun-2017

    Summary: The Council followed the correct procedure when it offered the maximum Disabled Facilities Grant to Ms X for adaptations to a property. It considered exercising discretion to award more than the maximum grant. It offered alternative properties and recommended alternative funding options.

  • Tendring District Council (16 014 768)

    Statement Upheld Allocations 06-Jun-2017

    Summary: The Council was at fault in the way it dealt with the complainant's request for help with housing. The Council has agreed to consider the application again and should take into account all relevant information. There was also fault in the way it dealt with the complainant's subsequent homelessness application and the Council has agreed a financial remedy to acknowledge the stress and anxiety caused by the Council's actions.

  • London Borough of Haringey (17 002 332)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Allocations 06-Jun-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X's complaint about the Council's decision not to award her a higher housing priority. The complaint is late. There are no good reasons for us to now investigate as it is unlikely we would find fault.

  • London Borough of Croydon (16 015 749)

    Statement Upheld Allocations 05-Jun-2017

    Summary: The Council is at fault in how it considered Mr X's application to join the housing register and in how it considered his request for a review of that decision. Mr X did not miss out on an offer of housing but he was put to avoidable time and trouble and caused distress. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice as recommended.