Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to provide homelessness support because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s refusal to accept a homelessness application from her and, therefore, to provide homelessness support.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. We can consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

6. Ms X approached the Council for homelessness support on 11 February 2025. On 13 February 2025, the Council carried out an assessment. Ms X explained she had been evicted from a council tenancy by another council in 2024. She had moved around a bit since then and recently been living in a bungalow provided by organisation A, which provided supporting living accommodation. The same day, the Council contacted organisation A, which confirmed Ms X had been living in a self-contained bungalow and that it was still available to her if she wished to return. The Council did not identify any risks associated with Ms X returning to the bungalow. It advised her it did not consider she was homeless and confirmed this in writing. Its letter said it did not have reason to believe she was homeless or threatened with homelessness. It also included a link to general advice for those facing homelessness on its website.

My assessment

7. Where a council has “reason to believe” a person may be homeless or threatened with homelessness and eligible for housing support, it must make enquiries to decide whether it owes a homelessness duty to them.
8. In this case, the Council considered the information Ms X provided but did not consider the “reason to believe” threshold was met. It explained this to Ms X at the assessment interview and confirmed it in writing. When the “reason to believe” threshold is not met, there is no requirement on councils to issue a decision with review rights.
9. Regardless of any formal homelessness duty, councils must provide general advice and information to those seeking support. The Council did this by referring Ms X to relevant information on its website.
10. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making or handling of Ms X’s request to justify further investigation. Therefore, we will not consider the complaint further.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman