Leeds City Council (24 002 486)
Category : Children's care services > Friends and family carers
Decision : Closed after initial enquiries
Decision date : 02 Jul 2024
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about false allegations made against her in care proceedings for her niece because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from investigating complaints about matters that have been considered in court. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council raising concerns about the care of her children. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and I see no good grounds to exercise discretion to consider it now.
The complaint
- The complainant, Miss X, complains about evidence provided about her in care proceedings in 2020 relating to her niece. Mrs X says false allegations were made against her which led to the child not being placed in her care. She also complains the Council raised and investigated concerns about her children being at risk of harm.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- 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)
- The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
- 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)
- 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)
How I considered this complaint
- I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
- I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
- We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about evidence provided to the court in the care proceedings for her niece or allegations made about Miss X in court because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law says we cannot consider complaints about matters that have been considered and decided in court. We have no discretion to do so.
- We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council raising and investigating concerns about the care of her own children. 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. Miss X complained to the Council about the 2020 events in 2022. She explained she had not felt able to complain earlier due to the emotional distress the events caused her. The Council considered the complaint and asked Miss X to provide more information to enable it to consider her complaint further at stage 2 of its procedure. However, Miss X did not contact the Council again until early 2024, almost two years later.
- The Council explained it would not consider the complaint further due to the passage of time, it being a historical matter and there being no ongoing case involvement. This is a decision the Council was entitled to make.
- Miss X could have been reasonably expected to have pursued her complaint with the Council to its conclusion back in 2022. I see no good grounds to exercise discretion to consider it now, four years later and over two years after Miss X first complained to the Council about it.
Final decision
- We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about matters considered in court because it lies outside our jurisdiction and we have no discretion to consider it. We will not consider Miss X’s complaint about the Council raising concerns about her own children because the complaint is very late and there are no good grounds to exercise discretion to consider it now four years after the events complained about.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman