Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to protect Mr X from abuse as a child in the 1980s. We could not come to sound conclusions now or achieve a meaningful outcome for Mr X, and he could reasonably have complained sooner.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to protect him from abuse in foster care in the 1980s and 1990s. He says this led to long-term mental health issues and other knock-on effects. He wants a formal apology and financial redress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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)
3. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact 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 or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X made a historical complaint to the Council about events of the 1980s and 1990s, when Mr X was a child. Historical allegations are where so much time has elapsed since the fault complained of occurred that an investigation is likely to be impeded by the passage of time. It can be difficult in such cases to establish the material facts with reasonable confidence. In older cases we are less likely to be able to gather sufficient evidence to reach a sound judgement.
7. I have carefully considered whether we should use our discretion in Mr X’s case to investigate a complaint about events from his childhood, namely because Mr X has provided some substantive evidence, which is not always possible with historical complaints. Despite this, due to the passage of time we could not now come to sound conclusions. Nor could we say with any confidence what would have happened but for any fault by the Council, and so I do not believe we could provide any meaningful remedy for Mr X.
8. We must also consider whether there is good reason for delay in people complaining to us, and whether they could reasonably have complained sooner. It is reasonable that Mr X did not complain when he was a child. However, Mr X became an adult in the late 1990s. He began reporting the historical abuse in 2012 and began gathering all the evidence he could. In 2015, he received records from the Council following a subject access request.
9. Mr X’s mental health has suffered significantly due to the events he complains about, and he has explained to us the further significant knock-on impacts. However, 11 years have passed since he began telling people about his childhood experiences and he could have made his complaint to the Council and then the Ombudsman much sooner. We do not require people to gather evidence before bringing complaints to us. Ultimately, we could not now provide Mr X with the closure he seeks.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is about historical matters which we could not now come to sound decisions on, and he could have complained sooner.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman