Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an alledged failure by the Council to safeguard the complainant from harm when she was a child between 1999 and 2007. This is because it is not the role of the Ombudsman to investigate historical issues and, given the passage of time, we do not consider there is a realistic prospect of reaching a sound, fair, and meaningful decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant (Miss L) complains about the quality of support provided to her by the Council’s Children’s Services team when she was a child. In particular, Miss L says she experienced abuse in her family home between 1999 and 2007 when she was a child. She says referrals were made to the Council about her wellbeing during this period and that it failed to properly investigate and provided much needed intervention and support to safeguard her from abuse.
2. In summary, Miss L says the alledged fault has had a significant and adverse impact on her mental health and emotional wellbeing. As a desired outcome, she wants the Council to acknowledge that it failed to intervene and provide adequate support when it should have.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate 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 an investigation if we decide there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by this. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)).
4. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. While I recognise the issues raised by Miss L, the role of the Ombudsman is not to investigate historical issues. The restriction I outline (above) inserts a time limit for a member of the public to bring their complaint to the attention of the Ombudsman. Its intention is two-fold: to provide us with the best opportunity of arriving at a robust, evidence-based decision on complaints about recent events and to ensure fairness by enabling us to decline an investigation into historic matters, which could and should have formed the basis of a complaint far sooner.
7. I considered whether there are any good reasons to exercise our discretion and disapply the time limit referred to. It is my view however there would be practical limitations on our ability to investigate now. My reasons include:
1. There would be difficulties in establishing the material facts with reasonable confidence and gathering sufficient evidence to reach a sound judgement.
2. We cannot apply current standards, guidance, or professional expectations to historical situations. It is therefore likely to be more difficult to reach a firm and fair conclusion on whether there was any maladministration by the Council.
3. It is likely to be more difficult to achieve a meaningful remedy in Miss L’s case, given the length of time that has already passed, the difficulty in establishing causality over longer time periods, and changes in the situation of the parties.
8. I do not therefore consider there is a realistic prospect of reaching a sound, fair, and meaningful decision in Miss L’s case. We will not therefore investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the restrictions I outline at paragraph three and four (above) apply.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman