Summary: We have upheld Mr X’s complaint about a delay in telling him he could return to his temporary accommodation following safeguarding enquiries. The Council has apologised and will make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s two-week delay in informing him that he could return to his temporary accommodation following a safeguarding enquiry. He said this caused considerable distress and he incurred financial costs for alternative accommodation. He also said the safeguarding enquiry meant his employment was suspended.
2. Mr X also complained about advice given by staff working for the temporary accommodation provider, which he said changed the course of the safeguarding case, and added to the distress caused.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

6. Mr and Mrs X were living with their children in temporary accommodation arranged by the Council. In early June, there was an incident involving Mr and Mrs X to which the police were called. The temporary accommodation provider, organisation A, was concerned about possible domestic abuse and made a safeguarding referral to the Council. Organisation A said Mr X could not stay in its accommodation whilst safeguarding enquiries were carried out.
7. Mr X says a staff member working for organisation A influenced Mrs X’s statements at the outset and raised the threat that the children might be removed from her. In its response to our enquiries, the Council said the staff member declined to give advice about what Mrs X should do or what the outcome might be but had told Mrs X to speak to the social worker.
8. Council records show that, in the initial telephone call between the social worker and Mrs X on 9 June, Mrs X said she wanted to speak to her husband but was worried about doing so as she had been told this would lead to her children being taken away. Mrs X said she had been told this by the staff member and by other mothers in the temporary accommodation. The social worker told her that children would not be removed if they were safe.
9. On 10 June, the social worker spoke to Mrs X and the children at home as part of their assessment. They later spoke to Mr X and carried out standard checks to assess any risks.
10. In mid-June, they asked the housing team whether Mr X would be able to return to the temporary accommodation and about the housing options if he was not able to do so. The housing team provided some general advice about the options but did not confirm whether Mr X would be able to return.
11. On 3 July, in a further email exchange, the housing team confirmed Mr X could return to the temporary accommodation, provided the social worker considered this was safe. The social worker said it was safe. The emails do not indicate who would tell Mr X that he could return nor confirm the date he could do so. On 4 July, Mr X was told he must wait for a decision from organisation A. He sent an email to organisation A the same day, but I have not seen any response.
12. Mr X was told he could return to the temporary accommodation on 31 July 2025. On the same day, Mr X formally complained about a two-week delay in being told he could return to the temporary accommodation. In its complaint response, the Council accepted there was a delay, for which it apologised. It said this was due to the social worker being on leave. It said it was committed to ensuring that “decisions of this nature are communicated clearly and promptly” going forward.
13. Mr X told us he was not able to stay in the temporary accommodation for two months. He said he was able to stay with a friend for much of the time but had to keep leaving as the friend’s tenancy did not allows others to live with them. He said that, when he could not stay with friends, he had to pay for alternative accommodation, and he provided evidence of costs incurred in June 2025.

My assessment

14. If we investigated further, it is likely we would find fault with the Council for a delay in telling Mr X he could return to the temporary accommodation. But for that delay he could have returned earlier. This caused him distress, as he was separated from his wife and children longer than necessary. It also meant he did not have stable housing during that time.
15. I note the Council accepted fault during the complaints process and apologised.
16. We asked the Council to take further steps to remedy the injustice caused and it has agreed to take the following action within one month of the date of this decision:
• pay Mr X £350 as a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice caused; and
• remind relevant staff of the need to agree who will communicate the outcome of discussions between housing and social care teams in situations like this and of the importance of ensuring the outcome is communicated clearly and promptly to those affected.
17. In relation to the complaint about the advice given by the staff member at organisation A, there are various different accounts of what was said and I cannot resolve that conflict. In addition, there is the possibility that there was a simple misunderstanding in what were stressful circumstances at the time and in which translation was needed because not all the parties had good English. Further, the social worker clarified the position about removing children a few days after the conversation complained about, but this did not affect the safeguarding actions the Council had already decided were needed. Therefore, even if there was fault in relation to any advice given, it did not cause sufficient injustice to justify further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We have upheld the complaint. The Council has agreed to take further action to remedy the injustice caused and prevent recurrence of the issue.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman