Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the loss of some of the complainant’s belongings. This is because the complaint is made late, and there are no good reasons to consider it now. Additionally a complaint about a Subject Access Request (SAR) is better considered by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr U, says that:
• Following one of his placement moves as an Looked After Child, in 2017, some of his belongings were lost by the Council, which should have been taking care of them;
• The Council has refused to replace the belongings that have not been found; and
• It has not responded to an SAR made in 2018.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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)
4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information provided by Mr U and by the Council. I have also sent Mr U a draft decision for his comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr U was a Looked After Child, and was moved between a number of care addresses in 2016 - 17. When he was moved from Doncaster to Anglesey, he says that his social worker promised to look after and then bring his belongings to him.
7. Mr U says the social worker did not do so. Eventually some of his belonging were located and returned to him, but he says that the Council was unable to locate other items. The Council replaced some of them, but Mr U says some remained missing and were not replaced.
8. Mr U complained and the Council investigated the complaint. It did not uphold his complaint at stage two of its complaints procedures. This was because it said that Mr U did not provide evidence of purchase of the missing items, and the independent investigator was not wholly convinced of the truth of Mr U’s account.
9. The Council’s stage two response referred Mr U to its stage 3 complaints procedure, and to the Ombudsman, in August 2018. However, Mr U did not take further action until December 2019, when he approached the Ombudsman.
10. I will not investigate this matter however, as the complaint is made late and there are no good reasons to exercise the Ombudsman’s discretion to investigate it now.
11. Mr U also complains that he made a subject access request to the Council in 2018, and has yet to receive a response. This complaint should be made to the ICO which is the body set up by parliament to consider such complaints.

Back to top

Final decision

12. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because the main complaint is made late and is out of jurisdiction as there are no good reason to consider it now. The other matter raised should be referred to the ICO.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman