Homelessness


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • London Borough of Bromley (16 016 387)

    Statement Not upheld Homelessness 12-Jun-2017

    Summary: The Council was not at fault in the way it decided whether it had a duty to protect Ms Y's possessions while in temporary accommodation.

  • Braintree District Council (16 009 014)

    Statement Upheld Homelessness 07-Jun-2017

    Summary: The Council was at fault for not accepting sooner the need to make enquiries into the complainant's homelessness. It also delayed adding the complainant's ex-partner to his housing application for four months. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay a financial remedy to the complainant for the resulting injustice, which will be offset against money he owes to the Council. Other parts of the complaint are not upheld. This includes complaints about the Council's service when the complainant first alerted it to his housing need and a complaint it has made a series of wrong allegations about him. The Ombudsman cannot investigate some other parts of the complaint as they are outside jurisdiction.

  • London Borough of Haringey (16 011 002)

    Statement Not upheld Homelessness 06-Jun-2017

    Summary: Miss J complains that the Council has wrongly removed her from the housing register. She says she was told that she would be housed in a neighbouring borough temporarily and allowed to bid on properties within the borough. The Council was not at fault. The contract shows that the agreement was for long-term accommodation and the Council has since offered her accommodation within the borough which she refused. There is no fault or injustice.

  • Canterbury City Council (16 007 335)

    Statement Upheld Homelessness 02-Jun-2017

    Summary: The Council told its Landlord to remove Ms X's belongings from her temporary accommodation before it spoke to her. This is fault. Ms X did not have an opportunity to claim the items herself and says some items are now missing. The Council has agreed to review its procedures, apologise to Ms X and pay her £500.

  • Medway Council (17 001 529)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Homelessness 01-Jun-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council did not give appropriate advice and support regarding the complainant's homelessness. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

  • London Borough of Newham (16 004 542)

    Statement Upheld Homelessness 31-May-2017

    Summary: There were some faults in the Council's arrangement of temporary accommodation for Ms C. At my recommendation, the Council agreed to apologise, pay £1,635 and review its procedures.

  • Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (17 001 916)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Homelessness 26-May-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss B's late complaint about the manner in which two Council officers treated her and that the officers should not have placed her in supported accommodation. There is not enough justification for the Ombudsman to exercise discretion.

  • Luton Borough Council (16 015 457)

    Statement Upheld Homelessness 25-May-2017

    Summary: The council unreasonably delayed a review of its decision on Mr X's homelessness application. There was fault that warranted a remedy.

  • London Borough of Havering (16 009 288)

    Statement Upheld Homelessness 22-May-2017

    Summary: Miss X says the Council is at fault in its handling of her request for assistance with her housing situation. The Ombudsman has found some evidence of fault by the Council and he recommended it apologise and pay Miss X £100 in recognition of the injustice caused to her. The Council agreed.

  • Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (16 014 108)

    Statement Upheld Homelessness 19-May-2017

    Summary: The Council took too long to make a decision on the complainant's request for a review of its decision she was not homeless. This did not cause her an injustice as it provided accommodation to the complainant during the review. The complainant had the right to appeal to court if she considered the Council had erred in law in deciding she was not homeless.

;