Summary: We have not investigated Miss Y’s complaint about events which happened between 2003 and 2005 when she was subject to a child protection plan. This is because there is no realistic prospect of reaching a sound decision with a meaningful outcome for Miss Y.

The complaint

1. Miss Y complains about her experiences between 2003 and 2005 when she was sexually abused. During this time Miss Y was subject to a Child Protection plan and she says the Council failed in its duty to safeguard her.
2. Miss Y seeks compensation for the significant impact on her mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 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 cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
5. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
6. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. Before writing this decision, I considered the complaint correspondence and comments submitted by Miss Y. I also discussed the complaint with Miss Y.
8. I consulted the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Jurisdiction.
9. Miss Y and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The law and the Ombudsman’s guidance

10. We may receive complaints about matters where so much time has elapsed since the alleged fault occurred. In such cases, an investigation is likely to be hindered by the passage of time. We will always consider each complaint on its merits and take account of the individual circumstances. However, our Guidance on Jurisdiction says we should be cautious about starting an investigation into complaints about historical allegations for the following reasons.
1. The further away in time an investigation takes place from the events complained about, the more difficult it may be to establish the facts with reasonable confidence. In older cases we are less likely to be able to gather sufficient evidence to reach a sound judgement. Even if some evidence is available, we need to ensure it is reliable and provides a full picture.
2. We cannot apply current standards, guidance, or professional expectations to historical situations. It is therefore likely to be more difficult to reach a firm and fair conclusion on whether there was fault.
3. It is more difficult to achieve a meaningful remedy, given the length of time that has passed, the difficulty in establishing causality over longer time periods, and changes in the situation of any parties involved.
11. The guidance suggests a presumption against exercising discretion unless there are clear and compelling reasons that satisfy both of the following two tests:
1. there is a realistic prospect of reaching a sound, fair and meaningful decision; and
2. the complainant could not reasonably be expected to have complained sooner.

Our analysis

12. Miss Y complains about events which occurred between 2003 and 2005 when she was a young person subject to a Child Protection (CP) plan. During this time, Miss Y was the victim of sexual abuse. After entering adulthood, Miss Y reflected on her experiences and submitted a Subject Access Request (SAR) to the Council in 2022 and received her social care file.
13. Around this time there was an independent inquiry into widespread and systemic Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE) in the Council’s area. This concluded with 47 recommendations which the Council accepted. Following the inquiry, the Council put together a strategic implementation group made up of people with lived experience of CSE as well as representatives from the Council and its partners.
14. After reviewing the files received from the SAR, Miss Y complained to the Council in 2022 regarding the missed opportunities to safeguard her from abuse. The Council decided to investigate Miss Y’s complaint under stages one and two of the statutory complaints process.
15. Miss Y did not request a review at stage three. Instead, she decided to pursue an insurance claim against the Council, but the insurers did not accept liability. Mrs Y later approached the Ombudsman.
16. Miss Y asked us to investigate her concerns and to seek remedial action, including an apology, an acknowledgement of what happened and compensation for the emotional harm and distress she experienced. Miss Y also seeks reimbursement for therapy which she has privately funded.
17. After reviewing Miss Y’s complaint alongside our Guidance on Jurisdiction, we have decided to discontinue our investigation for the following reasons.

• Miss Y complained to the Council in 2022 about events which happened almost 20 years prior. After considering Miss Y’s comments, I consider it would not have been reasonable for her to complain sooner. This is because she was a vulnerable child at the time of the events. In the following years Miss Y was a young carer for her chronically ill mother before eventually being the primary carer for her younger siblings. Miss Y has also suffered significant mental health issues following the abuse she was subject to. Miss Y only felt able to start complaining in 2022 and has been pursuing the matter since.
• However, for us to investigate there also needs to be a prospect of reaching a sound view, on the balance of probabilities, about whether the Council’s actions were fault. To do so we would need evidence. Although Miss Y has records from her SAR, as well as a Stage 2 complaint response, it is not clear that all the relevant files exist. The complaint response suggests that some of the paper files from before 2007 may not have been scanned onto Miss Y’s electronic record. Furthermore, we cannot contact all relevant staff who were employed by the Council over 15 years ago. Therefore, I am not confident that we could make a sound evidence-based decision that professional judgments made at the time were administratively flawed.
• Miss Y’s complaint is primarily that the Council was negligent in its duty to safeguard her during childhood. Although this is not the only remedy Miss Y hopes to achieve, she has referred to the possibility of seeking compensation for the long-term impact on her mental health. The Ombudsman can only recommend modest and symbolic payments. We cannot recommend actions or payments that punish the Council. Nor can we say whether the Council has acted negligently and recommend compensation for any damages; that is a matter for the courts. I note the Council has agreed to implement the recommendations of the independent inquiry and last year the Government made an agreement to set up a redress scheme for victims of CSE. It may be more appropriate for Miss Y to explore the possibility of using the victim compensation scheme to receive appropriate financial redress.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We have not investigated Miss Y’s complaint because it is unlikely we could reach a sound and evidence-based conclusion and achieve a meaningful outcome for Miss Y.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman