Summary: We will not investigate this historical complaint about the Council placing Mr Y in a children’s home in the 1970s. We could not carry out a sound, fair and meaningful investigation given the time that has passed.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s decision to place her friend, Mr Y, in a children’s home in the 1970s. She said Mr Y still experienced nightmares about his time in the accommodation. Mrs X did not say what outcome she sought from complaining.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The law says people must bring complaints to us within 12 months of becoming aware of the matter, unless there are good reasons. 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.
6. We will not normally investigate historical allegations. The main reasons are:
• Evidence: The further away in time an investigation takes place from the events to be investigated, the more difficult it may be 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. Even if some evidence is available, we would need to be particularly careful to ensure it is reliable, and provides a full picture.
• Context: In many cases 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 fault.
• Remedy: In historical cases it is likely to be more difficult to achieve a meaningful remedy, 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.
7. We will not exercise discretion to investigate historical complaints unless:
• We are confident there is a realistic prospect of reaching a sound, fair, and meaningful decision, and
• We are satisfied the complainant could not reasonably be expected to have complained sooner.
8. Given the significant passing of time since the events this complaint concerns, we could not investigate the matter fairly and we could not come to sound conclusions. We could not now gather the evidence that would be necessary to investigate the matter properly.
9. A person having been a child at the time of events is usually a good reason for them not having complained at the time. However, the more time that passes after a person turns 18, the less likely we are to consider further delay reasonable.
10. The events Ms X complains about occurred in the 1970s, when Mr Y was a child. The latest Mr Y turned 18 would be 1997. This means at least a further 27 years have passed. It would have been reasonable for Mr Y to complain to us sooner.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s historical complaint because we could not carry out a sound, fair and meaningful investigation given the time that has passed.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman