Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision-making regarding a taxi service it provided to her in the mid-late 1990s when she was a Looked After Child. This is because the complaint is late, there are no good reasons to exercise discretion.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the actions of the Council while she was a Looked After Child in the mid-late 1990s. Miss X said the Council employed a taxi service without implementing effective safeguards. Miss X said this meant she experienced harm by the employees of the taxi firm.
2. Miss X said the matter caused her distress, frustration and uncertainty.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
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.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Council complaint

7. During the Ombudsman’s assessment the Council said it had not received a complaint from Miss X. However, it said it would not consider the complaint in any case because too much time had passed.
8. Consequently, I have exercised discretion to consider these matters as the Council has had the opportunity to consider the complaint but decided it would not.

Historical complaints

9. The matters Miss X complained about happened while she was a Looked After Child in the mid-late 90s as a teenager. Miss X approached the Ombudsman in mid-2025. It has been up to 29 years since the events Miss X described occurred.
10. In cases where a significant amount of time has elapsed since the alleged fault and injustice occurred, the Ombudsman must consider whether:
1. we are confident that there is a realistic prospect of reaching a sound, fair, and meaningful decision; and
2. we are satisfied the complainant could not reasonably be expected to have complained sooner.
11. If either of the above tests are not met, we do not investigate.
12. I have considered the circumstances of Miss X’s case and the difficulties she described. However, I do not consider there is a realistic prospect of reaching a sound, fair, or meaningful decision. This is because the amount of time that has elapsed is significant.
13. Council standards and practices have changed significantly over the course of the past 30 years. There is limited prospect in understanding the Council’s decision-making at the time. There are likely to be limited Council records, and an inability to interview people that would have made the decisions to enable the Ombudsman to find fault causing injustice.
14. The first test is therefore not met, and we will not investigate this complaint.
15. Even if there was some evidence available, Miss X said she had approached the Council in 2016 to discuss some of the issues she described but was dismissed.
16. Although I acknowledge the difficulties Miss X described, I have seen no good reasons Miss X could not have complained to the Ombudsman sooner. The second test is therefore not met, and we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because it is late, and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman