Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to investigate Ms X’s concerns about its contact with her family. It is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s decision, not to investigate. Nor will we investigate a complaint about those matters either, because it is a late complaint and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to investigate it.

The complaint

1. Ms X says the Council was wrong to have refused to investigate her complaint about the actions it took in relation to her family. She said it failed to appropriately consider their needs, negatively portrayed her and her parenting ability and its records were incomplete and inaccurate. She is now concerned about the impact on the Council’s failures.

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 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))
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
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. Ms X said the Council was wrong to have declined to take her complaint because the matters affecting her only came to light after she received records after a subject access request (SAR) in 2025. Ms X complained to us in September 2026.
8. The children’s statutory complaint procedure allows the Council to decline to take a complaint about matters which have occurred more than 12 months before a complaint was raised with it. It can do so, provided it explains its reasons why it has decided this, and does so on a case-by-case basis.
9. The Council acknowledged that Ms X had only received a SAR in 2025. It said the main issues she complained about, related to its contact with her between 2020 and 2023. It said it did not believe it could carry out a fair and effective investigation because not all the information it may have needed would be available. It also said it believed because she was aware of the decisions being taken at the time, she could have reasonably raised them before the time limit had passed.
10. The Council appears to have considered its discretion here and explained its reasons for declining to investigate Ms X’s complaint. Therefore, it is unlikely we would find fault in the way it considered this decision and I cannot question it.
11. I have considered whether there are good reasons for us to exercise discretion to consider Ms X's complaint. The law, explained in paragraph four, says we should not investigate late complaints. I acknowledge Ms X's comments about why she did not raise these matters sooner. But this is not a sufficient good reason for me to set aside the expectation in law that we will not investigate.
12. On balance, it is unlikely, that Ms X would not have been aware of significant events that were occurring, affecting her children, including for matters that were considered at family court proceedings.  

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s decision to decline her complaint. And we will not consider it either because it is late and the reasons given, are not sufficient good reasons to consider it now.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman