Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement in Mr X’s case when he was a child in the 1980s and 1990s. We could not carry out a fair investigation due to the passage of time. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision in 2024 not to investigate Mr X’s complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about how the Council handled his case when he was a child, from the late 1980s to mid-1990s. He said he suffered abuse in foster placements the Council arranged when he was accommodated under a care order.
2. Mr X also complained the Council declined in 2024 to investigate his complaint due to the time that had passed.
3. Mr X said the matter had caused him significant trauma. He wanted the Council to investigate his complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. 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)
6. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

9. The substantive complaint Mr X brought to us is about the Council’s actions in the late 1980s and 1990s, when he was a child. Mr X turned 18 in the late 1990s.
10. Mr X requested information from the Council in 2023. He says this provided further information he was not previously aware of. Mr X complained to the Council in late 2024 and us in early 2026.
11. When we receive late complaints, we must consider whether there is good reason for the delay in the complaint being brough to us and whether we could carry out a fair investigation given the time that has passed.

Complaints about events when Mr X was a child

12. The more time passes between the events and a complaint, the more unlikely it is we can investigate them effectively, gather reliable evidence and reach a sound decision. In older cases we also may not be able to achieve a meaningful remedy because too many circumstances have changed. We are often unable to be able to show why events occurred or understand who was responsible.
13. The substantive complaint in this case is about the Council’s actions between the late 1980s and mid-1990s. I have considered that Mr X was a child at the time of events. Nearly three decades passed between Mr X turning 18 and his complaint to us. Mr X has explained the significant trauma the events caused him, and I have considered the impact this would have had on his ability to complain.
14. However, even if we decided this meant he could not have complained sooner, we ultimately could not carry out a fair investigation of the events now or come to sound conclusions. We will not investigate the historical events Mr X’s complaint centres around.

Complaint about the Council’s decision not to investigate

15. I accept Mr X may have found it significantly harder than others to progress complaints due to the mental health difficulties he has explained to us. I have therefore considered the Council’s decision of late 2024 that it would not investigate his complaint, despite the delay in him then complaining to us.
16. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.
17. In any event, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision. It considered the circumstances but decided it could not carry out a fair investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because parts of it are historical, and there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council in its more recent actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman