Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s involvement with his family. This is because the complaint is late, and we cannot consider matters which have been discussed in court. It is also unlikely that we could carry out a meaningful investigation given the time that has elapsed.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the involvement of the Council’s Children’s Services team with his family.

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. 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)
4. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
5. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the information he provided. I also gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on a draft statement before reaching a final decision on his complaint.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mr X complains the Council’s Children’s Services team became involved with the mother of his child and her new partner in 2006. Mr X says the Council did not do enough to safeguard his son, and he had to take legal action to have contact with him. Mr X says he did not raise his concerns earlier because he was worried about the repercussions. The Council has said it will not investigate his complaint because it is about historical matters, and he first discussed raising a complaint four years ago.
8. The Ombudsman normally expects people to complain to us within twelve months of them becoming aware of a problem. 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 clear reasons to do so. I do not consider that to be the case here, and so the exception at paragraph 3 applies to Mr X’s complaint. In reaching this decision I have taken into account the points I make below.
9. Mr X says that to have contact with his son he had to take the matter to court. The Ombudsman has no discretion to consider things which have been discussed in court, or which could reasonably have been raised in court. So, even if we were to investigate, we would not be able to look at this part of Mr X’s complaint.
10. Also, in deciding whether to investigate, we need to consider what we could achieve for the person complaining. The events Mr X complain about date to 2006 – thirteen years ago. Given the time that has elapsed it would be difficult to carry out a meaningful investigation, and so the Ombudsman will not become involved.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because the complaint is late, we cannot consider matters which have been discussed in court, and it would be difficult to carry out a meaningful investigation given the time that has elapsed.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman