Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about pre-school fees. Mr X has known about the events for two and half years. There are no compelling reasons why the late complaint rule should not apply.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, says the Council failed to process his application for free pre-school fees and this cost him £310.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word 'fault' to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:
• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Mr X provided with his complaint and the Council’s responses which it provided. I considered Mr X’s comments on a draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X has a child, B, who was born in January 2013. Mr X says B should have had a free pre-school place aged two and three. Mr X says he applied for this with a housing benefit application in March 2016. He has provided a copy of the type of form he believes he put in. He has provided emails chasing the Council in March and April 2016. He says the Council did not get back to him.
6. Mr X complained to the Council in September 2018. He said he had had to take out a loan for £310 to cover fees the Council should have paid.
7. The Council in reply explained parents apply on line for free fees for two year olds. It says parents apply for a three year old direct to the pre-school placement and not to the Council. The form Mr X has provided states on the front it has to be returned to the provider.
8. Mr X says the pre-school setting B attended, is now closed.

Analysis

9. We cannot investigate events known to Mr X for more than 12 months without compelling reasons. Here there are not because:
1. I am not confident there is a realistic prospect of reaching a sound, fair, and meaningful decision. This is because:
1. the preschool setting is now closed and therefore the evidence it holds of Mr X’s application may not be available.
2. The Council has no record of his application.
3. The obligation was on Mr X to apply to the setting.

and

2. I am not satisfied Mr X could not reasonably be expected to have complained sooner. There are two and half years between when Mr X thought he had applied and him chasing it, and him complaining to us. There is no evidence he pursued his complaint in the intervening period about this issue.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there are no compelling reasons why the late complaint rule should not apply.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman