Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about historical safeguarding failures by the Council. Her complaint is late, and an investigation by us would not achieve anything worthwhile.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about various Council safeguarding failings from 2010 to 2011. Ms X said the failings have had a long-lasting impact on her, including on her mental health.
2. She complains the Council staff member who investigated her complaint in 2025 is also the same person who approved the Council’s social care and safeguarding actions in 2010 and 2011.

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. 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 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

5. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Ms X said the Council failed to safeguard her between 2010 and 2011.
8. The matters she complains of took place about 15 or 16 years ago, and so it is a complaint about historical matters. 
9. When deciding whether to exercise our discretion and investigate complaints about historical matters, our guidance says must we consider two tests. If either of the following tests are not met, we would not typically investigate.
10. We should consider if:

1. we are confident that there is a realistic prospect of reaching a sound, fair, and meaningful decision, and
2. we are satisfied that the complainant could not reasonably be expected to have complained sooner.

11. We do not consider that there is a realistic prospect of reaching a meaningful and fair decision, or that an investigation would not achieve anything worthwhile.
12. This is because so many years have passed since the matters she complains of took place and there are limited records and information available to help us reach a fair or meaningful decision.
13. We also note the Council said it has limited information available about Ms X’s case because so many years have passed since the safeguarding failures she alleges took place. We therefore do not consider that test (a) of our guidance is met.
14. The evidence available shows Ms X was 15 or 16 years old when the alleged failings happened in 2010 and 2011. This means she became an adult roughly 10 years ago. Ms X complained to us in 2025.
15. It is reasonable to expect her to have complained to us much sooner than she did because she had been an adult for roughly a decade by the time she complained to us.
16. We acknowledge the sensitive matters she has raised, but we consider it reasonable to expect she could have complained to us much sooner than she eventually did, and therefore test (b) of our guidance is not met.
17. Ms X also complains the person who dealt with her complaint in 2025 is the same person who signed off her social care records at the time the matters she complains of took place.
18. However, we do not usually investigate complaints about the Council’s complaint handling alone if we cannot investigate the substantive issues raised at the same time. This would not be an efficient use of our limited public resources.

Back to top

Final decision

19. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because it is late and an investigation by us would not achieve anything worthwhile. We will not investigate the Council’s complaint handling alone if we are not going to investigate the substantive issues she has raised.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman