Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s children’s services involvement when she was a child. This is because, given the passage of time, we do not consider there is a realistic prospect of reaching a sound, fair and meaningful decision

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council failed to safeguard her as a homeless child/young adult with a learning disability. She describes being placed in unsafe adult B&Bs with no risk assessments. She reports neglect, lack of educational support, and no help with medical or mental health needs. She says she lived in poverty with no essentials or financial assistance. She believes these failures caused long term trauma, mental health disorders, and loss of education.
2. She seeks an apology, recognition of her vulnerability, compensation for harm, and formal acknowledgment of the lasting impact on her life.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Miss X complained to the Council about historic failures by children’s services dating back more than 15–20 years. She said the Council failed in its duties to safeguard her as vulnerable child and care leaver.
8. The Council expressed sympathy but said it could not investigate because the complaint was made more than 12 months after the events.
9. Miss X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman, and we made enquiries to the Council to consider whether we could investigate despite the time lapsed.
10. The Council advised it had only brief involvement with Miss X when she was a child, that she chose not to engage with offered support, and that responsibility for her care always remained with her mother. The Council confirmed it was never formally responsible for her care, found no concerns requiring intervention, and holds only limited electronic records, with no indication that she was ever a looked‑after child.
11. While I recognise Miss X’s past experiences have caused her significant distress, the restriction outlined in paragraph 4 inserts a time limit for a member of the public to bring their complaint to the attention of the Ombudsman. Its intention is two-fold: to provide us with the best opportunity of arriving at a robust, evidence-based decision on complaints and to ensure fairness by enabling us to decline an investigation into historic matters, which could and should have formed the basis of a complaint far sooner.
12. I considered whether there were good reasons to exercise discretion and disapply the time limit, however it is my view that given the age of the events and the limited records the Council holds in relation to Miss X as a child, we (like the Council) would be unable to complete a fair and conclusive investigation into these matters, it is also less likely we could provide a meaningful remedy, as it becomes harder to link current injustice directly to historic actions and many circumstances, standards or guidance have since changed.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. This is because, given the passage of time, we do not consider there is a realistic prospect of reaching a sound, fair and meaningful decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman