Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s historic complaint that the Council failed to protect her from harm when she was a child. The complaint is late and due to the significant passage of time since the events complained about we could not carry out a full, fair and effective investigation of these matters now.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council failed to protect her from neglect, abuse, instability and harm when she was a child from the early 1990s onwards. Miss X says it failed to act on known risks or properly respond to reported abuse. She also complains it did not provide promised support and permanent housing when she was under a Special Guardianship Order.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
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 cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

My assessment

8. The Council told Miss X that due to the historic nature of the concerns raised in her complaint there were significant constraints on its ability to conduct a full investigation via its complaints procedure now. It explained that having assessed Miss X’s complaint it did not consider it could carry out a meaningful investigation into the issues raised. In making its decision it took account of the significant passage of time; availability of evidence and records; significant changes in law, statutory guidance, professional practice and thresholds for intervention and whether it was able to achieve any meaningful outcome via an investigation. It also noted some matters were considered and decided in the family court. It clearly explained its reasons and signposted Miss X to this office.
9. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. The complaint is historic; it lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late. The law says a complaint should be made to us within 12 months of the person affected first becoming aware of the matter. The Council explained that due to the significant passage of time, it would not be able to carry out a meaningful investigation into these events now and explained the difficulties and barriers posed. These would also apply to an investigation by this office.
10. I see no good grounds to exercise discretion to consider this late, historic complaint now. Due to the historic nature of the concerns raised, I do not see that there is any realistic prospect of us being able to carry out a full and fair investigation into these events and reach a fair view on the issues raised for the same reasons set out by the Council.
11. Also, some issues were considered and decided in court. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that have been subject to court proceedings. We have no discretion to do so.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. It lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and there are no good grounds to exercise discretion to consider it now, for the reasons set out above.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman