Summary: There was no procedural fault in the Council’s decision not to investigate Mrs X’s complaint about safeguarding failings in the 1990s. Because of this, we have no power to question its decision.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains that:
• The Council refused to investigate her complaint about serious safeguarding failings during her childhood (between 1990 and 1997).
• Although government guidance allows councils discretion to disregard time limits in historic cases – reflecting that many survivors cannot come forward until later in life – the Council failed to use this discretion.
• The Council’s refusal was based on assumptions about missing staff or records, not a serious effort to explore what could still be investigated.
2. Mrs X says the Council’s failure to consider her complaint has contributed to her distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way a council made its decision. If there was no fault in how the council made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law and guidance.
6. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

7. The Children Act 1989 Representations Procedure (England) Regulations 2006 (‘the regulations’) set out a three-stage procedure for complaints about certain aspects of children’s social care. I refer to this as ‘the statutory procedure’.
8. The regulations say someone must take no more than a year to make a complaint about something under the statutory procedure.
9. However, the regulations also say that councils can disregard this time limit if it would not have been reasonable to expect the person to complain earlier, and it would still be possible to consider the complaint “effectively and fairly”.
10. The government statutory guidance document, ‘Getting the best from complaints’ (‘the guidance’) provides more information. It says:
• The 12-month time limit can be extended at a council’s discretion if it is still possible to consider the complaint effectively and efficiently.
• However, there should generally be a presumption in favour of accepting late complaints unless there is good reason not to.
• Possible grounds for accepting a late complaint include that there is likely to be sufficient access to relevant information or individuals to enable an effective and fair investigation to be carried out.
11. The guidance sets out the role of an independent investigating officer under the statutory procedure, which includes “interviewing with staff and other people relevant to the complaint”.
12. The guidance also suggests good practice for investigating officers. A significant part of this – 11 of the 25 points of good practice – is related to interviewing staff.

What happened

13. In April 2025, Mrs X complained to the Council, saying it failed to protect her from abuse in the 1990s. She also raised concerns about an individual who, she said, continues to pose a risk to children in the present day.
14. The Council’s complaints manager responded to Mrs X, saying her complaint “is substantially outside the 1-year timeframe for making complaints, and therefore I am declining to action it through the Council’s complaints procedures”.
15. Mrs X wrote back to the Council. She said:
• Her complaint was about serious issues which, while historic, remained relevant.
• It would not have been reasonable to expect Mrs X to complain at the time, as she was a child. And, as a survivor of abuse, it was many years until she felt able to raise a formal complaint.
• Councils have flexibility when dealing with historic safeguarding complaints, or when there are exceptional circumstances.
16. The Council acknowledged that it had the flexibility to accept late complaints but told Mrs X that the decision ultimately lay with its complaints manager. The complaints manager said:

In reaching my decision to decline, which I have not done lightly, I have weighed up what is said in … the guidance. It is my professional opinion that trying to investigate a complaint spanning 7 years from 1990 to 1997, which is a period 28-35 years ago, would not be fully possible as although there will be some case recordings, the staff involved at the time will either no longer be here, or if any are available for interview, they will not be able to accurately recall events from so long ago. Any investigation would therefore be flawed.

17. The Council told Mrs X that, if she continued to have concerns about any child, she could make a referral through the Council’s established procedures. It then referred her to the Ombudsman.

My findings

18. It is not our role to interfere in a council’s operational decision-making. Nor can I substitute a council officer’s judgment for my own. My view on whether the Council should accept Mrs X’s late complaint, if I had one, would be irrelevant.
19. Instead, our role is to decide whether the Council made its decision without procedural fault.
20. I note that:
• The Council considered Mrs X’s views and its own discretionary powers.
• Although Mrs X has demonstrated that case records still exist, the Council’s primary reason for rejecting her complaint was the likely unavailability of staff. This is a relevant consideration under the guidance.
• Staff interviews form a significant part of the government’s good practice guidance for investigating officers, and also form part of the definition of an investigating officer’s role. Because of this, the importance the Council placed on staff interviews in the investigative process was not irrational – which, without any other procedural fault, is what it would have to be for me to be able to criticise it.
• The Council’s view that children’s social care staff from the 1990s would likely no longer be in employment or would not be able to accurately recall events was not irrational either.
21. With these things in mind, I do not consider there to be any evidence of significant or obvious procedural fault. Because of this, I have no power to question the Council’s decision.

Back to top

Decision

22. The Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman