Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint the Council failed to properly support her child for seven years. Some elements of the complaint are late and we have no remit to investigate others. We also cannot achieve the outcome Ms X wants.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council has refused to consider her complaint that it failed her child, Y, for seven years from 2017 to 2024. The Council failed to provide appropriate support or make referrals despite clear signs of neurodivergence, mental health crises and suicide risk. Ms X believes the Council blamed her for the issues rather than recognising Y’s needs. Y died by suicide last year. Ms X wants the Council to investigate her complaints, apologise and give her access to all her child’s records. She also wants the Council to admit its neglect of Y and compensate her and her family for the trauma and impact of Y’s death.

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 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 another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. 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)
5. We cannot investigate complaints about actions which are not the administrative function of a council. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(1) as amended).

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 has explained it cannot investigate Ms X’s complaints about its handling of her child’s case from 2017 onwards. Ms X has specifically complained about the content of an assessment the Council completed in 2018. She has also raised concerns about missed opportunities to address risks of harm and suicide in 2022 and 2023.
9. We usually expect people to complain to us within 12 months of the events they are complaining about. Ms X has been aware of these issues since 2018, 2022 and 2023 respectively. Any concerns she continues to have about the Council’s handling that occurred more than 12 months before her bringing her complaint to us are now late. We can exercise discretion to consider late complaints if there is good reason to do so. I have not asked if there is a good reason, because even if we investigated it is unlikely we could achieve a worthwhile outcome.
10. The main element of Ms X’s complaint centres on her belief that signs of Y’s neurodivergence should have been spotted and diagnosed much sooner. Ms X believes the Council played a significant part in this failure and she wants it to acknowledge that.
11. Health services are typically responsible for diagnosing neurodivergent conditions such as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). The actions of the local health services in Y’s area fall outside our jurisdiction to investigate. Because of this, it would not be possible for us to determine whether anything the Council did in its handling of Y’s case directly caused the injustice Ms X now alleges.
12. Ms X has also complained about the Council not giving her full access to Y’s records. Issues about access to records or personal data fall under the remit of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). It would be reasonable for Ms X to pursue any concerns she has about the information and records the Council has disclosed to her about Y with the ICO, rather than us.
13. I have a great deal of sympathy for Ms X and her family following Y’s tragic death and the circumstances leading to this. Ms X has told us she wants the Council to award compensation for the trauma caused to her and her family. We do not award punitive compensation or ‘damages’; these are matters for the courts. When someone has suffered because of fault, we try to put them back in the position they would have been if that error had not happened – although I recognise this is not something we could achieve in Ms X’s or Y’s case. We focus on restoring services that have been denied and recommending practical steps to put things right. When we recommend a payment, it is often a modest, symbolic amount. It is not our role to assess economic losses or award compensation for negligence. The courts are for people where this is a primary goal.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because some aspects are too late to bring to us and we cannot achieve the outcome she wants for others.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman