Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an alleged lack of financial support from the Council back in 2015 when the complainant was granted a special guardianship order. The complaint is both late and historical. There are no good reasons to exercise discretion and investigate now because the passage of time means there is not a realistic prospect of reaching a sound, fair, and meaningful decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant (Ms X) complains about an alleged lack of financial support from the Council when she obtained a special guardianship order (SGO) for a young person in 2015. She says the Council should have carried out a financial assessment three years from SGO being granted and with a view to providing her with financial support.
2. In summary, Ms X says the alleged fault has caused her financial hardship, as well as negatively affected her wellbeing. As a desired outcome, Ms X wants the Council to review what financial support she would have been entitled to in 2018 and provide her with compensation as a remedy to the failing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to consider complaints about historical matters. The provision I outline at paragraph three (above) 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 about recent events 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.
6. I considered whether there are any good reasons to exercise our discretion and disapply the time limit referred to. It is my view however, that notwithstanding any good reasons, there would be practical limitations on our ability to investigate now. My reasons include:
1. There would be difficulties in establishing the material facts with reasonable confidence and gathering sufficient evidence to reach a sound judgement.
2. We cannot apply current standards, guidance, or professional expectations to historical situations. It is therefore likely to be more difficult to reach a firm and fair conclusion on whether there was any maladministration by the Council.
3. It is likely to be more difficult to achieve a meaningful remedy in Ms X’s case, given the length of time that has already passed, the difficulty in establishing causality over longer time periods, and changes in the situation of the parties.
7. I do not therefore consider there is a realistic prospect of reaching a sound, fair, and meaningful decision in Ms W’s case. We will not therefore investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this late complaint. There are no good reasons to exercise discretion and investigate because the passage of time means there is not a realistic prospect of reaching a sound, fair, and meaningful decision

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman