Summary: Miss X complained the Council refused to investigate her complaint about how it handled matters in 2009. We find the Council at fault for how it decided not to investigate and for failing to give Miss X an adequate explanation for that decision. This caused Miss X distress and undermined her trust in the Council. The Council will apologise and reconsider its decision on whether to investigate. It will also ensure it has internal guidance for historic abuse complaints.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council refused to investigate her complaint about its investigation into abuse she suffered as a child in 2009.
2. Miss X says this has caused her to not trust the Council and had significant impact on her mental wellbeing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. An organisation should not adopt a blanket or uniform approach or policy that prevents it from considering the circumstances of a particular case. We may find fault in the actions of organisations that ‘fetter their discretion’ in this way.
5. 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(1), as amended)
6. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Miss 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

9. 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’.
10. The regulations say someone must take no more than a year to make a complaint about something under the statutory procedure.
11. 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”.
12. 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.
13. 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”.
14. Specific retention periods for children's social care records include: 
• Children Looked After (CLA) and Child Protection Records (Subject to a Plan): 75 years from the date of birth.
• Child in Need Records and Assessment Records (Single Assessment): 25 years from the date of birth.
• Section 47 Recordings and Initial Child Protection Conference (No Plan): 40 years from the date of birth.
• Adoption Case Files: 100 years from the date of the adoption order.
• Fostering Files (Carers): 50 years from the date the case is closed, while unsuccessful fostering applicants' files are kept for 10 years from the closure date.
• Privately Fostered Children and records where involvement does not progress beyond referral: 75 years from the date of birth and 25 years from the date of birth, respectively. 

What happened

15. In June 2025, Miss X complained to the Council, saying it failed to act on reports of abuse against her in 2009. Miss X said she had only recently become aware of how the case was handled after obtaining records through a Subject Access Request (SAR).
16. In July, the Council responded, saying it could not progress the complaint as it was outside the one-year time frame set out in its complaint policy. It said it would not exercise discretion as it was likely the staff involved had since left the Council. Therefore, it would be difficult to investigate the complaint and reach any findings.
17. The Council told Miss X it would contact children’s services to see if it could offer any support outside the formal complaint procedure.
18. Miss X then brought her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Council response to enquiries

19. The Council told us it had carried out checks to see which records remained available. It confirmed the workers involved in Miss X’s case were no longer employed by the Council.
20. The Council said it does not have internal guidance for handling historic complaints. It said it follows the ‘Getting the best from complaints guidance. It explained that when a complainant is a Looked After Child (LAC), concerns can be discussed and records explained to them through a Young Person’s Advisor . But Miss X was not a LAC.
21. The Council told us it is considering how it could better support complainants where it cannot investigate a complaint. It said complaints about historic abuse cases were added to the agenda of a meeting in January 2026 to consider any potential improvements.

My findings

22. Miss X was a child at the time of the incident, and the matters were sensitive. It would not be reasonable to expect her to have complained until she was an adult and felt able to do so. The complaint arose only after Miss X obtained records meaning she had only recently become aware of the Council’s actions. Although the Council may refuse complaints made outside the statutory time limit, it has discretion to consider them. I do not consider the Council reasonably exercised, or evidenced its consideration of, discretion in this case. This was fault.
23. The Council acknowledged it does not have internal guidance for dealing with complaints from individuals in circumstances similar to Miss X. This was fault. The Council said it had begun exploring how it could better support such complainants.
24. The Council website states its retention policy is in line with Children and Young People guidance. On that basis, records about Miss X’s case should have been kept and remain accessible. It was able to provide Miss X with her records through the SAR, which directly led to her complaint. As these records still exist, the Council has not explained why it could not use them to consider Miss X’s complaint.
25. I acknowledge that the Council has since confirmed all the caseworkers involved in Miss X’s case are no longer employed by the Council. While I appreciate this may limit an investigation, the continued employment of staff involved is not a requisite for an investigation. The Council also seemingly did not fully explore this at the time of Miss X’s complaint, as it stated it was ‘likely’ staff had since left. I am not satisfied the Council made a reasonable attempt to consider whether an investigation was possible before refusing the complaint. The Council’s failure to look beyond its one-year time frame is evidence of it fettering its discretion. This was fault and caused Miss X to feel unheard, a loss of trust in the Council and significant distress.
26. The Council also failed to clearly explain this limitation to Miss X in its complaint response. I find fault in its handling of the complaint.
27. In response to my draft decision, the Council has provided evidence that it has introduced internal guidance setting out how it will consider historic child abuse complaints. I am satisfied this addresses the fault identified. I do not make any further recommendation on this point.

Action

28. To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults, within four weeks of the date of our final decision, the council will:
• Apologise to Miss X in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology;
• Reconsider investigating the complaint. If the Council decides not to complete an investigation, it should ensure it provides a clear explanation to Miss X on why it reached this conclusion.

Decision

29. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman