Metropolitan Police Service

3. Mr O complains about Metropolitan Police Service’s (MPS) breach of the Victim’s Code between August 2019 and August 2020. In particular he complains:

• there was a lack of action or contact from the initial investigating officer between August 2019 and November 2019 • there was a lack of contact from the second investigating officer between March 2020 and August 2020 • he is not satisfied with the outcome of no further action in August 2020 and believes his case should be sent to the CPS to make a decision

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.

Lack of contact August to November 2019

10. Mr O became aware of his reason to complain about this issue in September or October 2019 when he called MPS for an update and an individual told him they could not do anything and they gave no explanations. 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 his date of knowledge, therefore by October 2020.

11. Mr O wrote to an MP about this complaint on 19 September 2024. This means the complaint was referred to an MP three years and 11 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, Mr O raised a complaint with the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) in August 2020. He received a complaint response in June 2021 and some of the issues Mr O raised were investigated between July 2021 and September 2021. His complaint was closed ‘no further action’ at local level.

14. We can see Mr O raised his complaint to the IOPC 11 months after his date of knowledge. We accept IOPC took around a year to decide to reinvestigate some of his complaint and provide a response in September 2021 and that this impacted the timeline. This was not within Mr O’s control and we would not disadvantage Mr O for this delay at local level. However, Mr O’s complaint did not come to us outside of our time limit solely because of this one year delay.

15. After Mr O received his response at local level in September 2021, it took him three years to refer his complaint to an MP in September 2024. This is a significant period of delay.

16. We asked Mr O about this delay. He told us his other complaints were ongoing and he was not sure what would happen with them. He was feeling suicidal between February 2024 and February 2025. He said he was not aware of the Ombudsman until April/May 2024 and he was considering whether to start High Court proceedings between February 2024 and March 2025.

17. We appreciate that Mr O had other complaints that were ongoing and complaints processes can be lengthy, time consuming and stressful. We are sorry to hear that Mr O was feeling suicidal and accept that that for the six month period of February 2024 to August 2024, it may have been very difficult for him to refer the matter to his MP.

18. This however, still leaves a delay of two and a half years, which is a significant period of time. We do not usually consider being unaware of the Ombudsman a barrier to referring a complaint to an MP, however this falls within the period he felt suicidal and we have accepted it was not possible for him to make a referral at that time. He was also considering whether to pursue High Court proceedings during the time he felt suicidal.

19. We are aware that Mr O was pursuing a civil court case against MPS between April 2023 and February 2024. We do not think this in itself is a barrier to referring his complaint to an MP and shows he was able to pursue his complaint at that time, so could have referred to it an MP. As such, we have not seen any reasons for the delay between September 2021 and January 2024 that justify putting our time limit to one side, therefore we consider this issue is out of time.

Lack of contact March to August 2020 and dissatisfaction with outcome in August 2020

20. Mr O’s date of knowledge for the lack of contact issue is August 2020 when he managed to get in contact with the investigating officer after chasing for updates. Mr O’s date of knowledge for the dissatisfaction with the no further action decision is also August 2020. As the date of knowledge for these two issues is the same, we have considered the timing of them together.

21. For the complaint about these issues to have been in time, Mr O would have had to have referred them to his MP by August 2021. He raised the issues in this complaint with his MP in September 2024, making them three years and one month out of time.

22. As above, we would not penalise Mr O for the year he had to wait to receive a response once he raised his complaint to the IOPC (from August 2020 to September 2021). We also accept Mr O was unable to complain between February 2024 and August 2024 due to feeling suicidal. There is still a two year and four month delay between September 2021 and January 2024 which is significant. As mentioned above, we do not consider Mr O pursuing a civil court case between April 2023 and February 2024 is a barrier to referring these issues to an MP.

23. As such, we have not seen sufficient reasons for the delay between September 2021 and January 2024 that justify putting our time limit to one side, therefore we consider these issues are out of time.

Conclusion

24. The issues in this complaint are considerably out of time. We considered Mr O’s reasons for delay and do not consider these exceptional reasons to justify putting out time limit to one side.

25. 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.