Privacy settings

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Cornwall Council (19 016 408)

Category : Housing > Allocations

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 16 Mar 2020

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s assessment of her housing application. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, whom I shall call Miss X, complains about the Council giving insufficient priority to her housing application when she applied in 2019. She says it ignored her vulnerability and she wants compensation for her and her daughter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:
  • it is unlikely we would find fault, or
  • it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
  • it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I have considered all the information which Miss X submitted with her complaint.

Back to top

What I found

  1. Miss X applied to the Council for rehousing and was allocated Band E priority according to her housing circumstances. In November 2019 she became threatened with homelessness and was placed in temporary accommodation. The Council changed Miss X’s priority to Band C which is the appropriate banding for statutory homeless applicants.
  2. Miss X’s social worker asked for her application to be considered by the Council’s Welfare Assessment Panel. The panel met in December and decided to award her application Band A on health and vulnerability grounds. The Banding was backdated to when the Panel application was submitted. Miss X complained because she believed that her banding was changed due to initial errors by the Council. There is no evidence that this is the case and the bandings changed with her circumstances.
  3. We will not uphold a complaint if a council has followed proper procedures, relevant legislation and guidance and taken account of all the information provided, even if the complainant thinks that the council should have given more priority to their application to move.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page