Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council failed to act to protect him from abuse while he was in its care as a child. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome Mr B wants.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Mr B, complains that the Council failed to act to protect him from abuse while he was in its care as a child.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• 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

3. I have considered what Mr B has said in support of his complaint and the documents he has provided. I have also considered the Council’s response. I have taken account of Mr B’s response to my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr B was in the Council’s care as a child. He alleges that the Council failed to protect him from having a sexual relationship with a staff member at the children’s home where he lived when he was too young to consent. He argues that the Council was aware of the abusive relationship but did not report the matter to the police. He believes it should compensate him for this failure.
5. In response to a claim Mr B made against it, the Council has examined such records of the period as still exist. It says there was evidence of a relationship with a woman who was not a staff member, although it cannot establish her identity. It argues that the action it took, insofar as this can be ascertained from the records, was reasonable in the circumstances.
6. Mr B regards the Council’s position as unreasonable. Specifically, he wants the Council to give him the perpetrator’s name, which he believes it can.
7. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint. Given that the events took place over 40 years ago, there is little chance that the Ombudsman would be able to make a safe conclusion that the Council was at fault in the way Mr B alleges. It is not possible to apply current expectations of safeguarding practice to situations which occurred in the 1970’s, and it is unlikely that investigation by the Ombudsman would achieve what Mr B wants.
8. With regard to the identity of the individual concerned, the evidence Mr B has provided shows that the Council claims not to have been able to identify her. Mr B does not accept this assertion, and says the evidence shows her identity is known to the Council.
9. Whether or not the Council knows the person’s identity is not a matter for the Ombudsman. Even if it could be shown that it does, the Ombudsman cannot take a view on whether that information should be released.
10. If Mr B believes the Council is withholding evidence to which he is entitled, he may bring his concerns to the attention of the Information Commissioner, who is better placed than the Ombudsman to consider such matters. It is not our role to obtain such information.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we cannot achieve what Mr B wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman