Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the Council’s involvement in Mr X’s child’s case between 2010 and 2022. There is not a good reason for the delay in the matter being brought to us and we could not now come to sound conclusions. The Information Commissioner’s Office is best placed to consider how the Council responded to Mr X’s request for information.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council:
• wrongly accused him of harming his child;
• breached his parental rights by not keeping him informed about his child; and
• did not properly respond to his request for information and accused him of modifying documents.
2. Mr X did not tell us how these issues impacted him, or what he sought from complaining.

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)
4. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Part of Mr X’s complaint relates to a request in 2023 for information he believes the Council held in 2010 and 2011. He says the information was about his child and was provided to the Council by another family member. He is concerned that the Council had changed its reasons for not sharing the information with him.
8. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is the body best placed to consider how organisations handle requests for information. Mr X is aware of the ICO and indicates he may already have referred the matter to them. There is not a good reason for us to consider this matter instead, or as well.
9. Mr X’s complaint also relates to an allegation in 2022 that he had harmed his child, and his view the Council failed to keep him informed about his child. The evidence Mr X provided shows he was aware of the allegation in 2022 and was consulted during the Council’s Section 47 enquiry.
10. The law says people must complain to us within 12 months of becoming aware of the matter unless there are good reasons. We also consider whether we could carry out a fair investigation and come to sound conclusions, given the passage of time.
11. Mr X explained he was suffering grief in 2022, which significantly impacted his mental health. Mr X instructed an advocacy organisation to contact the Council on his behalf in early 2024. Mr X submitted a complaint to the Council in mid-2025 and the Council responded in September confirming it could not properly investigate the matter due to the passage of time. Mr X complained to us in October 2025, nearly three years after he became aware of the allegations against him.
12. Significant periods lapsed between Mr X becoming aware of the matter in 2022, instructing the advocacy organisation in 2024 and ultimately complaining about the matter in late 2025. There is not good reasoning for the period of delay. In any event, we could not carry out a fair investigation now or come to sound conclusions.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s late complaint because there is not a good reason for the delay in the matter being brought to us and we could not now come to sound conclusions. The Information Commissioner’s Office is best placed to consider how the Council responded to Mr X’s request for information.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman