Metropolitan Police Service

3. Mr O complains that the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) did not adhere to the Victim’s Code following an incident he complained about in June 2016. In particular, he complains MPS:

• did not speak to him separately to the perpetrator on 24 June 2016 after the incident occurred • did not contact him within five days of the incident • did not keep video evidence for 30 days • delayed complaint handling.

4. Mr O says because the Victim’s Code rights were not adhered to, a proper investigation was not carried out. He also says he is unable to work due to severe mental and physical health deterioration and feels traumatised. He feels unsafe around people.

5. Mr O is seeking an apology and financial remedy.

9. The Ombudsman’s powers are set out in the PCA. This is the law that governs our work. It says a person needs to make their complaint to a MP within a year of becoming aware of the problem. We cannot investigate complaints brought to a MP after one year, unless we consider there is a good reason to do so.

Not speaking to Mr O separately

10. Mr O became aware of his reason to complain about this issue whilst the events were unfolding when the police came to his parents’ house on 24 June 2016. We call this the ‘date of knowledge’. For the complaint to have come to us in time, he would have needed to refer his complaint to an MP within 12 months of the date of knowledge, therefore by 24 June 2017.

11. Mr O wrote to an MP about this complaint on 19 September 2024. This means the complaint was referred to an MP seven years and three months outside of our 12 month time limit.

12. When any complaint comes to us outside of our time limit, we must consider the time taken by the person complaining and the time taken by the organisation to respond. We spoke with Mr O to understand the reasons why he could not bring his complaint to an MP sooner. We also considered the time MPS took to respond to Mr O’s complaint.

13. From the information shared with us, we can see Mr O first complained to MPS in January 2022, five years and seven months after his date of knowledge.

14. He received responses from MPS in January 2024 and September 2024. Mr O then raised his concerns with his MP in the same month, September 2024 which was prompt. We accept MPS took two years to provide its first response and that this impacted the timeline. This was not within Mr O’s control and we would not disadvantage Mr O for MPS’ delay. However, Mr O’s complaint did not come to us outside of our time limit solely because of this two year delay.

15. As mentioned above, Mr O took five years and seven months to raise his concern in January 2022. This is a significant period of delay.

16. We asked Mr O about this delay. He told us he was not aware of the kind of service he should receive from MPS as this was the first time he had called the police in an emergency. He was only aware of how victims should be treated after he submitted his complaint in January 2022. He said he did not know he had to make a complaint to raise a concern, as he thought saying how he felt was enough. He said he was not aware of police procedures and the Victims’ Code was not provided to him so he did not know he could complain sooner.

17. We understand that Mr O was experiencing the police process for the first time in June 2016 which will have been unfamiliar. We do not consider being unaware of police procedures or the Victims’ Code are sufficient barriers to have prevented him from raising his complaint to MPS sooner. He did eventually raise a complaint, but we think he could have done so sooner and that whilst we acknowledge the reasons he has provided, they do not justify such a long period of delay. As such, we consider this issue is out of time.

Lack of contact following the incident

18. Mr O told us his date of knowledge for this issue was August/September 2022, six years and two or three months after the incident occurred in June 2016. If we accept Mr O’s date of knowledge, for the issue to have been in time, he would have had to contact his MP by August/September 2023. He raised the issues in this complaint with his MP in September 2024, making it one year out of time, according to his timeline.

19. There was a significant delay from when the incident occurred in June 2016 to Mr O becoming aware of it, more than six years later. We asked Mr O why it took him so long to become aware of this issue. He said he only became aware as someone told him when he was preparing for his civil court case in August/September 2022 that he should have been contacted by MPS within five days of the incident to update him about the progress of his case. He said this was the first time he heard about the Victims Code.

20. Mr O told us as he became aware of this issue later, it was not included in his complaint to MPS. He did however raise it with the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) in August/September 2022 and it was responded to in September 2022.

21. We acknowledge that Mr O was going through a very difficult time when he made the police complaint in June 2016 and suffered ongoing distress. As above, we do not consider not knowing about his rights under the Victims Code is an adequate reason to account for such a long delay in becoming aware of the issue. We consider that even if Mr O was unaware of this right under the Victims’ Code, particularly, the five day timeframe, we do not think a delay of over six years is reasonable to become aware of this issue. As such, we consider this issue is out of time.

Video evidence availability

22. Mr O told us his date of knowledge for this issue is January 2022. If we accept his date of knowledge, he would have had to have referred the issue to an MP by January 2023 for it to have been in time. He raised the issues in this complaint with his MP in September 2024, making it one year and eight months out of time, according to his timeline.

23. Mr O said when he was making his complaint in January 2022 about the other issues, he was told by MPS that video evidence would be kept for 30 days but it was not available at this point. He thinks it was destroyed within a day. Mr O complained to MPS about this as soon as he found out.

24. If Mr O wanted to access the video evidence, we consider he could have asked for it sooner. As above, not being aware of the rules under the Victims’ Code until more than five years later is unfortunately not something we would consider to be an adequate reason for such a long period of delay. As a result, we consider this issue is out of time.

Complaint handling

25. Mr O told us MPS delayed in responding to his complaints. He initially raised his complaint to MPS in January 2022. MPS provided its first response in January 2024 and he then received a response from MOPAC in September 2024.

26. We acknowledge the distress Mr O would have experienced, particularly in relation to waiting for the first response when he was already going through a very stressful time due to the events he complained about to MPS. We do not wish to diminish this in any way and respect that the time it took MPS to respond may have exacerbated his frustration at the time. We have not considered this issue, as the rest of the complaint which contains the substantive issues is not in time, therefore looking into this concern in isolation does not meet our threshold for investigation. This is because we cannot look at complaint handling issues in isolation when we are unable to making findings on the substantive matters complained about.

Conclusion

27. The first three issues are considerably out of time. We considered Mr O’s reasons for delay in either raising his concern with MPS (for issue one) or becoming aware of the issues (for issues two and three) and do not consider these exceptional reasons to justify putting our time limit to one side.

28. We have decided not to look at the fourth issue in isolation as it does not meet our threshold for investigation, given that the rest of Mr O’s complaint (the substantive part) is out of time.

29. We thank Mr O for bringing his complaint to us and for speaking to us so openly about what happened. We understand this period was very difficult for him and we know how important his complaint is. We must apply our time limit rules fairly. For the reasons explained, we will not be considering this complaint further.

1. We have carefully considered Mr O’s concerns about the Metropolitan Police Service. The complaint falls outside our time limit, therefore we have decided not to consider his complaint further.

2. We thank Mr O for sharing his experience with us. We recognise the events cause Mr O considerable ongoing upset and distress. We hope our decision does not cause any further distress.