Summary: Mr X complains about how the Council dealt with concerns raised by his parents in the 1980s regarding Mr X’s school. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because too much time has passed for the Ombudsman to carry out an effective investigation, and it is unlikely we could add anything to the Council’s response.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains the Council did not respond to complaints made by his parents in the 1980s about the school Mr X attended.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and information from the Council. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on a draft statement before reaching a final decision on his complaint.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X attended a boarding school in the 1980s. In 2019, a member of staff from the school was found guilty of abusing Mr X while he was a student at the school. Mr X complained to the Council it did not respond to complaints made by his parents in the 1980s. Mr X says he has only just felt able to raise this issue with the Council. Mr X wants an apology from the Council for failing to respond to his parents’ complaints.
5. The Council has responded to Mr X’s complaint. It says it is not clear if the Council or another agency placed Mr X in the school at which he was abused. It has explained that it has only been able to locate a single file about Mr X. This is because there were less stringent requirements to keep files at the time. The Council has said to Mr X that “I am happy to formally recognise what you have been through and extend my apologies for that in the context of the systems and procedures that were in place at that time.”
6. The Ombudsman does not investigate all the complaints we receive. In deciding whether to investigate we consider various tests. These include the likelihood of finding fault and what an investigation could achieve.
7. The events Mr X complain about will have had a profound impact on him. It is not surprising Mr X has only recently felt able to raise his concerns. I also understand why Mr X wants an explanation or apology from the Council about how it dealt with the complaints from his parents.
8. But the events Mr X complain about took place more than thirty years ago. The Council is correct that record keeping in the 1980s was far less effective than it is today. Historic complaints can be difficult to investigate because of the lack of records. Staff leave organisations and memories fade as time goes by.
9. The Council has offered Mr X a general apology, but it says it only has limited records. If the Ombudsman were to investigate, it is unlikely, we could ever say with certainty what happened in the 1980s, and if the Council should offer a more specific apology to Mr X. It is therefore unlikely we could add anything to the response the Council has already given Mr X. While incredibly sympathetic to Mr X’s situation, an investigation by the Ombudsman is not therefore appropriate.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because too much time has passed for the Ombudsman to carry out an effective investigation, and it is unlikely we could add anything to the Council’s response.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman