Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council’s children’s services in relation to the complainant and her son. This is because the complaint is made late and we could not add to the Council’s investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainants, who I will call Ms Z complains about the actions of the Council’s children’s services between 2004 and 2008. Ms Z complains about a lack of support for her and her family and the Council’s decision to commence care proceedings. Ms Z complains that the Council ignored concerns she raised that her son (Mr X) was emotionally and physically abused by a foster carer.

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. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. The Council refused to investigate Ms Z’s complaint because of the time passed and because it also felt the complaint could have been made sooner. However, it did carry out an independent review of the case. The review found that there was some fault which caused Ms Z and Mr X distress. It therefore offered payments of £500 to Ms Z and £1500 to Mr X. Ms Z feels these amounts are too small and wants a higher amount of compensation.
9. I will not investigate Ms Z’s complaint. This is because the issues raised happened some 16 years ago and are therefore made late. I see no good reason why Ms Z could not have raised these matters sooner. Some of the issues raised relate to the Council’s decision to commence care proceedings and the information it included in its assessments. These matters fall outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction as the law does not allow us to consider matters that have been subject to court proceedings.
10. Even if this complaint were not late, we still would not investigate it because we could not add to the investigation carried out by the Council regarding the payments offered. Ms Z feels the amounts offered to her and her son are too low and seeks a higher level of compensation. The payment the Council has offered Ms Z and Mr X was to acknowledge the distress caused and is in line with our guidance on remedies. We cannot award compensation in the way a court might. However, we may recommend a symbolic payment to acknowledge distress caused by fault. This is what the Council has recommended. From the information I have considered I am satisfied the Council has offered a suitable remedy for the distress and anxiety caused by the Council’s fault. As such, an investigation by this office could not add to the response already provided via the Council’s previous investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms Z’s complaint because it is made late, and we could not add to the Council’s proposed remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman