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

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s refusal to accept a homelessness application from her and, therefore, to provide homelessness support. She complains the Council failed to assess her family’s situation and whether it was reasonable for them to occupy her current property. She says the Council failed to consider the family’s accommodation is severely overcrowded, her four children all have special educational needs (SEN) and Miss X has disability-related needs.

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 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 the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

What happened

6. In January 2026, Miss X approached Buckinghamshire Council for homelessness support. She lives in a three-bedroom social housing property with her four children in a different council area.
7. The following day, after considering the information Miss X provided, the Council wrote to Miss X with its decision. It told her it did not have reason to believe she was homeless or threatened with homelessness. It said Miss X’s current property was secure so she was not threatened with homelessness within 56 days based on risk of eviction. While it said Miss X may be overcrowded, it did not consider this met the threshold of having reason to believe she may have been homeless. Rather, it considered Miss X wanted to move to the area based on personal preference reasons, including accessing better school provision for her children and a larger property.
8. In its decision letter, the Council also provided Miss X with some advice about her possible housing options, including in the council-area where she lived, as well as the affordability of private rental accommodation within Buckinghamshire Council’s area based on the financial information provided by Miss X. The Council included a link to apply to join its housing register. It highlighted to Miss X that, without a five-year local connection through residency or employment, this could affect her priority under its housing allocations scheme.

Back to top

My assessment

9. 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.
10. In this case, the Council considered the information Miss X provided but did not consider the “reason to believe” threshold was met. It explained this to Miss X in its decision letter. When the “reason to believe” threshold is not met, there is no requirement on councils to issue a decision with review rights.
11. Regardless of any formal homelessness duty, councils must provide general advice and information to those seeking support. As detailed above, the Council did this in its decision letter. This included referring Miss X to relevant information on its website about applying to its housing register. The Council provided information about its local connection requirements specific to its housing allocations scheme. This was likely with a view to managing Miss X’s expectations. It remains open to Miss X to apply to join its register.
12. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making or handling of Miss X’s request to justify investigating. So, we will not consider the complaint further.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman