Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about children services involvement in her children’s removal from her care. There are no good reasons why the late complaint rule should not apply.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Miss X, complains about her children being removed from her care.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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)
4. 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 there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Miss X says the Council removed her two children from her care in 1999 and 2001. She says they were forcibly removed without her consent after false allegations. She says she made complaints at the time and since.
8. There are no good reasons why the late complaint rule should not apply. This is because:
• I am not confident that there is a realistic prospect of reaching a sound, fair, and meaningful decision, and
• I am not satisfied that the complainant could not reasonably be expected to have complained sooner.
9. I have particularly taken into account that:
• The children involved are now adults and it is for them to make their own complaints about their care during their childhood.
• It will be difficult to establish the material facts with reasonable confidence given the events are now over 20 years ago.
• We are unlikely to be able to gather sufficient evidence to reach a sound judgement. Even if some evidence is available, it would be hard to ensure it is reliable, and provides a full picture given officers’ likelihood of reliable memories from then.
10. Miss X also says the Council has refused to provide her with information about this. The Data Protection Acts provide people with rights to access information. If the Council deny Miss X has this right, or it no longer holds the information, the law provides for the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to consider the issue. They are better placed to do so, as this case involves consent and child protection issues which have complex exemptions and extra rules.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there are no good reasons why the late complaint rule should not apply and the ICO is better placed.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman