Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a lack of support during Mr X’s childhood and the Council’s handling of his housing and adult social care. This is because the matters have already been considered in court.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council:

• Failed to provide appropriate educational support when he was a child,
• Failed to safeguard him when he was a child,
• Handled his housing case poorly,
• Failed to identify safeguarding issues and to provide adequate support to him as an adult,
• Did not comply fully with a data request, and,
• Managed his complaint poorly.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. The courts have said that where someone has sought a remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law, we cannot investigate. This is the case even if the appeal did not or could not provide a complete remedy for all the injustice claimed. (R v The Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte PH (1999) EHCA Civ 916)
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. 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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

6. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So, where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
7. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered the information provided by the complainant and the Council.
9. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

10. Mr X lived in the Council’s area as a child and continues to live in the area as an adult.
11. Mr X complains that the Council failed to take adequate steps to safeguard him as a child or provide special educational needs (SEN) support. This took place through the 1980s and 1990s. Mr X also complains the Council handled his housing case poorly. Mr X has provided information that his complaints about housing are for the period 1999 to 2010. Mr X also complains the Council failed to identify safeguarding issues and to provide adequate support to him as an adult between 2007 and 2014.
12. Mr X states he has taken all these matters to court. The law says the Ombudsman cannot investigate matters considered by the courts as explained at point 3 of this decision. This means we have no jurisdiction to investigate Mr X’s complaint.
13. Even if the matters had not already been considered in court, we would not investigate. This is because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable from an investigation.
14. The Council confirmed it could not locate any records from Mr X’s childhood. Because this element of the complaint dates back to the 1980’s and 1990’s, I am unlikely to find fault in the Council not having a copy of records from this time.
15. Although the child protection and SEN matters complained of occurred several decades ago, we don’t expect children to be able to complain about the Council’s actions at the time given their age and vulnerability. Therefore, we do not consider Mr X’s complaint to be late as it appears he raised his complaint as soon as he reasonably became aware of his concerns.
16. However, an investigation is not proportionate because there are no records for the period complained about. It would not be possible for us to interview the staff involved as they are unlikely to still be in post. Further, any evidence they might be able to provide for the rationale for decisions taken is likely to be unreliable given the length of time that has passed. Therefore, it is unlikely we would be able to obtain any evidence to review the Council’s actions and reach any meaningful conclusions.
17. Mr X also complains the Council handled his housing case poorly. Mr X has provided information that his complaints about housing are for the period 1999 to 2010.
18. We normally expect people to complain to us within twelve months of them becoming aware of a problem. Mr X did not complain to the Ombudsman until 2025. We look at each complaint individually, and on its merits, considering the circumstances of each case. But we do not exercise discretion to accept a late complaint unless there are good reasons to do so.
19. I have considered whether to exercise our discretion to investigate this element of the complaint, but I have seen no good reasons to do so as it was reasonable for Mr X to have complained of the issues earlier.
20. Mr X also complains the Council failed to identify safeguarding issues and to provide adequate support to him as an adult. However, again, the matters he complains about relate to events that happened between 2007 and 2014. I do not consider there are good reasons to exercise discretion to investigate this late complaint as it was reasonable for Mr X to have complained of the issues earlier. Therefore, even if these matters had not already been considered in court, we would not investigate this element of the complaint because it has been brought to us late.
21. Part of Mr X’s complaint is about the Council’s failure to fully respond to his information requests. The Information Commissioner’s Office is the organisation best placed to consider complaints about how organisations handle people’s data and respond to requests for information. In the absence of a wider complaint within our remit, there is not a good reason for us to consider the matter instead.
22. Finally, we will not investigate how the Council dealt with Mr X’s complaint as it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint handling when we are not looking at the substantive issues.

Back to top

Final decision

23. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the matters have already been considered in court.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman