Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about her experiences in the care of the Council in the 1960’s. Ms X complains late and outside the legally ‘permitted period’ of 12 months. There is insufficient reason to exercise discretion to investigate because Ms X could have complained sooner.

The complaint

1. Ms Y complains for Ms X that the Council in the 1960’s placed Ms X in a foster care placement where she was abused. Ms X says the Council failed to protect her or act appropriately following referrals including from the police in 1966.
2. Ms X complains the Council failed to give appropriate support when she left care when a teenager.
3. Ms X says the Council caused lasting harm to her mental health. She says it gave inaccurate or incomplete information about her family. She says she had a breakdown in 2010 after reading the records of her childhood experiences. Ms X wants the Council to acknowledge its failings, the harmful impact on her, and apologise.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by or on behalf of the complainant. The information includes a letter Ms X’s solicitor sent the Council, dated 2 October 2018, claiming breach of duty and damages due to unsuitable or dangerous foster care placements in the 1960’s. I have also considered Ms Y’s comments in reply to my draft decision statement.

Back to top

My assessment

7. I will not investigate this complaint for the following reasons:
8. The complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction because Ms X complains late and outside the ‘permitted period’ of 12 months (see paragraphs 4 and 5 above). The information refers to events in the 1960’s and early 1970’s including:
1. The Council wrongly telling Ms X her father had died and Ms X finding him alive when a teenager.
2. Ms X being made to leave school aged fifteen.
3. A social worker intervening with Ms X’s employer and forcing her to leave lodgings both when she was fifteen.
9. I will not exercise discretion to investigate because Ms X could have complained to the Ombudsman many years earlier. The Ombudsman has existed since 1974 when Ms X was an adult. Ms Y says Ms X may not have been able to deal with the abuse until 2010. However, Ms X has delayed complaining since then and had legal representation in 2018.
10. Ms X has mentioned concern about how the Council is storing or proposes to keep her records. She says the paper files are to be transferred to some modern/electronic format. If Ms X has a data protection complaint she can reasonably go to the Information Commissioner which is the specialist body established in law to deal with data/personal information issues.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about her experiences in the care of the Council in the 1960’s. Ms X complains late and outside the legally ‘permitted period’ of 12 months. There is insufficient reason to exercise discretion to investigate because Ms X could have complained sooner.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman