Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to accept Miss X’s complaint under the children’s statutory complaints procedure. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the care of her child (Y) while they were looked after by the Council. Miss X said the Council placed Y in unsafe placements and placed them at risk of harm.
2. Miss X said this caused Y and her family significant emotional distress.

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 or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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

7. Miss X complained about how the Council cared for Y. She said Y remained in the Council’s care until they became 18. The available evidence suggests this was in June 2022.
8. Miss X complained to the Council in February 2026 and asked the Council to consider her concerns under the children’s statutory complaints procedure.
9. Statutory guidance says statutory complaints should be made within one year but gives Councils a wide discretion to investigate older complaints. This is where a person could not reasonably have complained earlier, or where evidence remains available to investigate the complaint properly.
10. In its response, the Council refused to consider the complaint due to the passage of time since its involvement ended. It set out its consideration of whether it would exercise discretion to investigate the complaint despite it being late. It did not consider there were any exceptional reasons for the delay in the complaint being made and so refused to investigate.
11. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong.
12. The available evidence suggests the Council appropriately considered its discretion before deciding to refuse the late complaint, in line with statutory guidance. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making and therefore we cannot question it. For this reason, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman