Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that she recently became aware of flaws in the actions of the Council over 13 years ago in relation to a child who later went on to attack her son. Given the passage of time, we could not, even on the balance of probabilities, make a causal link between the Council’s previous actions and what subsequently happened to Mr Z. Mrs X also complains about the safeguarding actions taken by the Council following the alleged attack on her son and the failure to provide him with any support. This complaint is late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion and investigate now.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains:
1. the Council failed to take appropriate action when a pupil (P) allegedly carried out sexual assault(s) on other children prior to 2011. As a result, Mrs X says this led to her son, Z, being sexually assaulted at school by P at a later date;
2. the Council’s safeguarding investigation carried out after Z was allegedly attacked was flawed and the Council did not provide appropriate support to Z; and
3. it refuses to confirm whether it has kept P’s records on file.
2. Mrs X says that as a result, her son’s mental health has suffered, he has offended himself and he has post traumatic stress disorder.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. Mrs X says she only became aware of the fact that P may have previously offended when she obtained police documents in 2022. Therefore, the complaint in paragraph 1a) is within time.
5. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
6. 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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

9. While Z was at a special school in 2011 he disclosed being sexually assaulted by another pupil, P. The allegation was reported to the Council and the police.
10. Both the Council and police investigated at the time but decided there was not enough evidence to take further action.
11. Mrs X says she became aware of new facts about P in 2022 when she gained access to a police report in which one of his family members said P had attacked someone else in the past (complaint in paragraph 1a)). Mrs X says if the Council had taken appropriate action after those earlier events occurred, Z would not have been attacked in 2011.
12. The relevant issues for the Ombudsman are whether we could or should carry out an investigation now and if so, whether an investigation by us would find a direct causal link between the Council’s actions prior to 2011, and the alleged attack in 2011.
13. The events took place 13 years ago. Given the passage of time and separation between events in the complaint, it is unlikely on balance we could say that what happened to Mrs X's son would not have happened if the Council had acted differently before that. Nor could we say, therefore, that the consequences for Z and Mrs X were due to Council actions or omissions which were avoidable.
14. If Mrs X wishes to pursue these matters because she believes Z’s mental health issues occurred because of the Council’s actions or omissions, then the courts are best placed to deal with claims of negligence or personal injury, which is what Mrs X is asserting.
15. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaints in paragraph 1b). Mrs X was aware of these events at the time and could have come to us then. I can see no good reason why she did not and so I will not exercise my discretion to investigate now.
16. However, even if I did exercise my discretion on whether the complaint was late, I would not investigate for the following reasons:
• the Council followed the appropriate procedures once it received the allegation of sexual assault. It considered the risk to Z and decided it was mitigated by the ongoing supervision of pupils at the school. Therefore, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation; and
• any decisions to prosecute, or not prosecute, P were for the police, and not the Council, to make.
17. Mrs X wants the Council to answer specific questions about the other child involved (complaint in paragraph 1c)). The Council has explained it cannot by law share information with her about another person. If Mrs X remains unhappy, she can complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office which is better placed to deal with this type of complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaints. Some of them are late. And with the others, given the passage of time, we could not, even on the balance of probabilities, make a causal link between the Council’s previous actions and what happened to Z.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman