Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement with the complainant’s family when she was a child. The complaint is historic and lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late. There are not good grounds to exercise discretion to consider it now.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Miss X, complains the Council failed to remove her from her mother’s care when she was a child despite knowing her mother was neglecting her.

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 effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Miss X complains the Council failed to intervene and remove her from her mother’s care when she was a child despite knowing her mother, who was mentally ill, was neglecting her. Miss X has a mental health condition caused by childhood trauma which she believes could have been avoided if the Council had started care proceedings.
8. Miss X complained to the Council in 2021 after receiving a copy of her care records which indicated the Council was aware she was being neglected.
9. The Council did not accept Miss X’s complaint because it was historic and outside the timescales for consideration under its complaints procedure. It added that due to the passage of time there were difficulties in considering historic complaints and many of the staff involved no longer worked for the department. As such, it could only rely on a review of manual records.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late, as per the restriction set out in paragraph 4, above. The matters complained about are historic and there are not good grounds to exercise discretion to consider it now.
11. Whilst I note Miss X only became aware of some matters more recently, following a subject access request, the difficulties the Council set out in it being able to consider Miss X’s complaint now would also apply to any investigation by this office. I cannot see there would be a realistic prospect of us being able to carry out a full and fair investigation and reach a sound view on the matters complained about now, so many years later.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman