Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate Miss X’s late complaint about children’s social services in 2018. There is no evidence to suggest she could not have complained to us earlier. And even if we did exercise discretion it is unlikely we could achieve the outcome wanted.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s Children’s Services failing to assist her family when they were evicted from their private sector accommodation in 2018.
2. She says effectively the Council forced them to go back to their home country despite two of her children being born and brought up in this country. She would like to come back to live here with her family.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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)
5. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant.
7. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The context for the Council’s children’s social services involvement was via Section 17 of the Children Act. This imposes a duty on the Council to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need. Councils are required to promote their upbringing by their families, by providing a range and level of services appropriate to those children’s needs.
9. Given that Miss X’s complaint has been made to us outside of our usual 12-month time frame for accepting complaints, I do not see any evidence to suggest Miss X could not have complained to us earlier than she did. I note in her complaint she refers to teaching staff and social work staff trying to help the family. So, it was possible that she could have asked for their support to make a complaint to the Ombudsman.
10. However, even if I did exercise discretion to investigate, there is another reason I should not investigate.
11. It seems that due to Miss X’s homelessness in 2018 the Council’s children’s services carried out a safeguarding review. The outcome of this review - conveyed in a letter to Miss X in 2018 - says the Council did not find her children had any safeguarding needs. It noted that it had provided the family with £210 to help with travel costs as the family had advised the Council it was returning to Poland. This is contrary to what Miss X says happened. So, there is a possible conflict of evidence here between what Miss X says and what the Council says happened and an investigation may not achieve Miss X’s desired outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is no evidence to suggest she could not have complained to us earlier.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman