London Borough of Croydon (22 016 950)

Category : Children's care services > Looked after children

Decision : Not upheld

Decision date : 20 Jun 2023

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: The Council was not at fault for rejecting Miss B’s complaint because it was too old. For the same reason, we have not investigated the substantive issues Miss B complains about.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Miss B, complains about how the Council supported her while she was a child in care, and when she was a care leaver.
  2. Although this was over ten years ago, Miss B says she did not know she could complain before now.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
  2. 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

  1. I considered information from Miss B and the Council.
  2. I considered the statutory guidance document, ‘Getting the best from complaints’. This provides instructions to councils on how to deal with children’s social work complaints.
  3. Miss B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

  1. Miss B left care over ten years ago. She reports that her time in care caused her significant trauma (for which she blames the Council), which in turn led to her own children being taken into care (for which she also blames the Council). She says she has suffered mental health issues throughout her life.
  2. Miss B says she complained to the Council in 2018, but did not receive a response.
  3. Miss B then made a further complaint to the Council in early 2023. The Council officer who received the complaint told her he would “need to review and discuss your complaint with my line Manager due to the historic nature”.
  4. Three weeks later, the Council rejected Miss B’s complaint. It said this was because the events she complained about took place more than a year before she made the complaint.

Statutory guidance

  1. Councils do not need to consider complaints about events which are more than a year old.
  2. However, they have the discretion to investigate old complaints in certain circumstances. Decisions to do so should be made on a case-by-case basis, but reasons can include:
    • It would have been unreasonable to expect the complainant to complain earlier.
    • The complainant has particular vulnerabilities.
    • Considering the complaint could still be beneficial to the complainant.

My findings

  1. It is apparent (from Miss B’s own account) that she has vulnerabilities (mental health issues). And it is not always reasonable to expect a child in care to pursue a formal complaint about the care they are receiving.
  2. However, Miss B left care well over a decade ago. This is a long period of time in which to make a complaint.
  3. The Council did not explain why it would not exercise its discretion to look at
    Miss B’s old complaint. But it did not reject the complaint out of hand. There was some discussion about it between the complaints officer and his manager.
  4. As the Council did give some consideration to whether to accept Miss B’s complaint, and as the ultimate decision to reject the complaint was not obviously unreasonable (given the long delay before she complained), I have no grounds to find fault with the Council. It made a decision which it was entitled to make.
  5. For the same reason, I will not investigate Miss B’s complaint either. It would not have been unreasonable to expect her to complain earlier.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. The Council was not at fault for rejecting Miss B’s complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings