Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council responded to a safeguarding disclosure Mr X said he made to its children’s services when he was a child. The complaint is late, and an investigation is unlikely to achieve a meaningful outcome. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about Council’s complaint handling because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not act when he made a safeguarding disclosure to its children’s services when he was a child in 2012. Mr X also complained about how the Council responded to his complaint.
2. Mr X said this affected his mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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 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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

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. Mr X complained the Council failed to act on a safeguarding disclosure he said he made to its children’s services when he was a child in or around 2012.
9. At the point of complaining to the Ombudsman in September 2025 Mr X said the Council had not properly responded to his complaint.
10. The primary issue complained about happened more than 10 years ago, and so it is a complaint about a historical matter. When deciding whether to investigate complaints about historical matters, we consider two tests. If either of the following tests are not met, we typically do not investigate:
1. we are confident that there is a realistic prospect of reaching a sound, fair, and meaningful decision, and
2. we are satisfied that the complainant could not reasonably be expected to have complained sooner.
11. Mr X became an adult recently. It is reasonable for him to have complained about the matter when he was an adult and not sooner, and therefore test (b) is met.
12. However, I do not believe we would be able to achieve a sound, fair or meaningful decision by investigating, and therefore test (a) is not met. This is because our ability to gather reliable evidence diminishes as time passes.
13. In the Council’s complaint response, it explained it had checked its systems and spoke with the allocated worker who Mr X said he made a disclosure to. It found no evidence a disclosure was made. An investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to be able to say one way or the other what happened due to the passage of time. For this reason, we will not exercise discretion to investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint.
14. Since Mr X complained to the Ombudsman, the Council provided him with copies of his case records, spoke with him, and provided a response to his complaint in December 2025.
15. The Council’s response suggests it completed a thorough investigation into Mr X’s concerns.
16. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council considered Mr X’s complaint to warrant our involvement. Therefore, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council handled a safeguarding disclosure he made when he was a child because it is late. We will not investigate the remainder of his complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman