Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the Council’s children’s services’ involvement in Mr X’s child’s case over several years. Some parts of the complaint are about historical matters that we could not now reach sound conclusions on. Mr X could have brought all parts of the complaint to us sooner.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s systemic failure to support his child since 2004. His concerns included:
• not providing safe and consistent accommodation to his child;
• ignoring child protection concerns; and
• breaching his child’s rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 and Equality Act 2010.
2. Mr X said the Council’s actions led to significant ongoing harm for his child and significant distress for Mr X. He wanted the Council to accept accountability.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

How we decide whether to investigate late complaints

6. The law says people must bring complaints to us within 12 months of becoming aware of the matter, unless there are good reasons. Our starting presumption is against investigating late complaints unless there are clear and compelling reasons for doing so.
7. We apply two tests to help us decide whether to investigate late complaints. We consider whether:
• there is a realistic prospect of reaching a sound, fair, and meaningful decision; and
• the complainant could reasonably be expected to have complained sooner.
8. We must be cautious about starting an investigation into historical allegations. The main reasons are:
• Evidence: 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.
• Context: 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.
• Remedy: 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.
9. Mr X complained to us in August 2025, more than 12 months after becoming aware of all matters he complains about. All parts of the complaint are therefore late, and I must consider whether we should apply discretion to investigate them.

Events between 2004 and 2021

10. The length of time that has passed since these events means that we could not now carry out a fair investigation and come to sound conclusions.
11. Mr X has explained some factors that were relevant to him not having complained at the time of these events. He lived with mental health difficulties and a neurological condition that was untreated. His own accommodation was unstable at times.
12. I have taken these factors into account, but I am satisfied there were times during this period when Mr X could have escalated his complaints or sought support to do so. Mr X told us he was raising his concerns with the Council during this period, and he could also have contacted us.

Events between late 2023 and early 2024

13. The relevant records would likely still be available for us to be able to investigate these more recent events.
14. Mr X told us he continued to live with mental health difficulties during this period, and other family circumstances meant he needed to spend significant time on other priorities. I have considered Mr X’s reasons for believing we should exercise discretion to investigate his late complaints.
15. However, I am satisfied Mr X could also have complained to us about these matters sooner. Mr X indicates he had started receiving treatment for his neurological condition by this point, and he also says he was in regular contact with the Council and other services in relation to his child and other matters. He could also have complained to us within 12 months of becoming aware of the issues.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s late complaint because some parts of the complaint are about historical matters that we could not now reach sound conclusions on, and Mr X could have brought all parts of the complaint to us sooner.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman