Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council refused to consider her complaint about historical allegations of abuse. We shall not investigate the complaint as the events are too old.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complained that West Northamptonshire Council (the Council) refused to consider her complaint about historical allegations of child abuse while she was in foster care. This has caused her significant distress.

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. Our Guidance on considering historical allegations says that we will consider each complaint on its merits and take account of the unique circumstances of each case but we should be cautious about starting an investigation into historical allegations, due to the difficulties:
• obtaining sufficient evidence to establish the material facts and reach a sound judgement.
• applying current standards, guidance or professional expectations to historical situations.
• achieving a meaningful remedy.
4. We will only investigate complaints of historical allegations where:
• We are confident that there is a realistic prospect of reaching a sound, fair, and meaningful decision, and
• We are satisfied that the complainant could not reasonably be expected to have complained sooner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant and the Council. Mrs 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

6. Mrs B was abused while in foster care for two years in the 1990s between the ages of 16 and 18. In an unconnected court case when she was 15 the court had not believed her account of alleged abuse against a different person, so she was fearful of taking part in any kind of court action.
7. In 2003 another victim mentioned Mrs B’s name in her allegations to doctors and social workers but no action was taken.
8. In March 2021 she found out from another victim who had been fostered in the same placement, that the perpetrator had been arrested. She reported her abuse to the police.
9. In October 2021 she complained to the Council about the failure to protect her while she was in care or to act on her report of the abuse at a later date.
10. The Council replied in November 2021 rejecting her complaint on the grounds that it was too old: the Council had a one year time limit for making a complaint. It explained it could exercise discretion to consider older complaints but in doing so it considered matters of vulnerability now, what benefit could be gained from an investigation now and what changes could ultimately be made to ensure the situation did not recur. It also took into account the availability of individuals involved and information to enable a fair investigation to be carried out. It said due to the historic nature of the complaint and the ongoing police investigation it would not investigate the complaint now. It advised Mrs B to seek legal advice if she felt she had a case against the Council.
11. In August 2023 once the police investigation had finished, Mrs B contacted the Council again via her MP. She wanted to know what processes were in place in the county to assess drastic changes in behaviour in children to prevent other children going through what she did.
12. The Council responded in September 2023. It explained that processes had changed considerably since the 1990s including the introduction of a new assessment model which considers children’s needs over time and evidences changes in behaviour and presentation. It also detailed the various review mechanisms and multi-agency forums in place to identify and monitor behaviours indicating distress.
13. Mrs B’s MP responded to the Council saying that Mrs B did not agree with the Council’s view that the complaint was too old. She was particularly concerned that reports of abuse were made by previous children at the placement and of which the foster carer was aware and yet children continued to be placed there, including her. She also questioned why parts of her records were redacted.
14. The MP chased the matter twice and in January 2024 the Council repeated its view that it was not able to investigate the complaint due to the time that had elapsed. It said that staff members involved in Mrs B’s life and care planning were no longer working within the Council and would not be able to comment on the matters raised. The only information available would be that held on Mrs B’s files to which she had already had access. If she was unhappy with the redacted information, she could take the matter up with the Information Commissioner’s office. It said the Council’s practices in terms of foster carer recruitment, assessment and support had changed significantly since 2011 with the introduction of National Minimum Standards and Fostering Regulations 2011. It again urged Mrs B to seek legal advice about possible criminal injuries compensation and gave details of organisations who could offer support.
15. Mrs B then complained to us. She said the abuse had impacted her life significantly and it was not reasonable for her to have complained earlier as she was a suicidal, isolated and frightened young woman trying to get on with her life.

Analysis

16. While I appreciate the sensitivity and enormity of the complaint Mrs B has made, I have to consider the complaint in the context of our jurisdiction and decide whether the two tests set out in paragraph 4 are met.
17. There is an argument that it was not reasonable for Mrs B to have complained sooner about these allegations (due to her age, vulnerability, fear of not being believed and wish to get on with her life). But equally it could be said that those reasons do not endure with the same intensity for more than 25 years.
18. Furthermore, I am not confident that there is a realistic prospect of reaching a sound, fair and meaningful decision:
• Evidence: The events happened over 25 years ago. The only evidence available to us will be the case records. We will be unable to ask any staff member for their recollection of the events or their involvement or whether the practice followed at that time was in accordance with the law and guidance. It will be difficult to resolve any discrepancies between those records and Mrs B’s recollection of events. I think it is very unlikely that we will be able to determine what happened and why, to a sufficient standard to reach a robust and safe conclusion.
• Context: As the Council has already explained that the law, in addition to the Council’s policies, procedures and practices, has changed significantly in 25 years and it will be difficult to apply current standards to old events to establish if there was fault.
• Remedy: Given the passage of time it will be difficult to achieve a meaningful remedy as the Council’s policies and practices have changed significantly and it will be difficult to establish clear causality between the Councils’ actions and Mrs B’s injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

19. I shall not investigate the complaint as the events are too old and there are insufficient reasons to exercise our discretion.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman