Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a worker entering his temporary accommodation without prior notice because further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to safeguard him as a vulnerable resident in temporary accommodation it had arranged. He said this affected his physical and mental health. Mr X also complained the Council did not handle his data correctly and says its complaints handling was both inadequate and not trauma informed.

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:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

5. Mr X was living in temporary accommodation arranged by the Council after fleeing domestic violence.
6. In February 2025, a worker from the accommodation provider, entered his flat without advance notice. Mr X says he was in bed and unwell, but the worker continued to look around and ask questions. Mr X also says they filmed him whilst he was in bed. Mr X says this caused significant trauma due to his previous experience of domestic violence.
7. In its complaint response, the Council said its provider told it the worker followed the correct procedure, which was to knock multiple times and announce themselves before using its key to gain entry. Its provider also said Mr X had replied “Its alright mate, sorry I was sleeping”. It acknowledged the worker made a video recording, which it said was to evidence the flat was overly cluttered, limiting access, and posing health and safety risks. It said the worker visited in response to a report of disrepair by Mr X and there was no evidence he was filmed whilst in bed.
8. The Council acknowledged there had been some poor communication and that the worker had not explained the reason for filming. It offered to pay Mr X £150 to remedy the distress caused.
9. In his complaint to the Council, Mr X also said he had been harassed by the perpetrator of the domestic violence and did not feel safe in his temporary accommodation. The Council said he could ask for a review of the suitability of his accommodation and it would arrange for an officer to contact him about this. Council records show Mr X did provide evidence for a review, although an internal record suggests its view was the temporary accommodation was safe. It is unclear whether the formal review as concluded, or whether it was no longer needed because Mr X had moved to permanent accommodation.

My assessment

10. There is a conflict of evidence about what happened when the worker called in February 2025. I was not there, so I cannot say what happened, including whether the worker followed the correct process or whether Mr X was in bed and the worker should have agreed to call another time. I have seen the video and can confirm there is nothing to show Mr X was in bed. Further investigation would not resolve this because it is one person’s word against another’s.
11. That said, the Council accepted Mr X had not been told why the worker was filming, for which it apologised. It offered to pay him £150 for that and delays in responding to emails in April 2025, just before he made a formal complaint. In the circumstances, further investigation by us would not reach a different outcome.
12. Mr X says the Council’s complaints handling was not trauma-informed. I agree it would have been better for the Council to acknowledge the potential impact of an unexpected intrusion, given Mr X’s experience of domestic violence. But we don’t investigate usually complaints handling unless we are also investigating the underlying matter. And in this case, I am satisfied the apology and payment were appropriate, taking into account Mr X’s vulnerabilities and that further investigation would not lead by us would not lead to a different outcome.
13. The Council correctly advised Mr X that a review of the suitability of his temporary accommodation was appropriate when he raised concerns about his safety. It is unlikely we would not be able to say the temporary accommodation was unsuitable in these circumstances and, since Mr X has since been rehoused, it is unlikely further investigation would lead to a different outcome.
14. In his complaint to us, Mr X also says the Council did not handle his data properly. This issue was not raised in his complaint to the Council, and the law says we cannot investigate unless the Council has had chance to respond. In any case, the Information Commissioner’s Officer is likely to be better placed to consider a complaint about data handling.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman