Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s children’s services involvement when he was a child. This is because, given the passage of time, we do not consider there is a realistic prospect of reaching a sound, fair and meaningful decision. We also could not achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking.

The complaint

1. Mr X complaints about the quality of service provided to him and his family by the Council’s children’s services when he was a child. Mr X wants those involved dismissed and to be prevented from working in children’s services.

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 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 (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained to the Council about historical issues relating to children’s services involvement dating back approximately 13 years.
7. The Council replied that it could not investigate because the complaint was made more than 12 months after the events.
8. While I recognise the issues raised by Mr X, the restriction outlined in paragraph 3 inserts a time limit for a member of the public to bring their complaint to the attention of the Ombudsman. Its intention is two-fold: to provide us with the best opportunity of arriving at a robust, evidence-based decision on complaints and to ensure fairness by enabling us to decline an investigation into historic matters, which could and should have formed the basis of a complaint far sooner.
9. The further away in time an investigation takes place from the events to be investigated, the more difficult it may be to establish the material 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 would need to be particularly careful to ensure it is reliable and provides a full picture.
10. In many cases 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.
11. In historical cases it is likely to be more difficult to achieve a meaningful remedy, given the length of time that has already passed, the difficulty in establishing causality over longer time periods, and changes in the situation of the parties.
12. I considered whether there are any good reasons to exercise our discretion and disapply the time limit referred to. It is my view however there would be practical limitations on our ability to investigate now and we could not achieve a meaningful conclusion or remedy.
13. Mr X wants the staff involved with his family to be dismissed. We cannot provide the outcome Mr X is seeking. The Ombudsman cannot recommend disciplinary action against staff.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about historical issues. Given the passage of time, we do not consider there is a realistic prospect of reaching a sound, fair and meaningful decision and we could not achieve the outcome he is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman