Metropolitan Police Service

3. Mr O complains that Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) breached his rights under the Victims Code between June 2021 and September 2021. In particular he says:

• during a video call in June 2021, a police officer told him they would pause the call whilst he was speaking about suicide • did not listen to his concerns in August or September 2021 about financial abuse.

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.

Video call June 2021

10. Mr O became aware of his reason to complain about the lack of honesty and sensitivity during the video call in July 2021 whilst the call was taking place. We call this the ‘date of knowledge’. For the complaint to have come to us in time, it would have needed to have been brought to an MP within 12 months of the date of knowledge, therefore by July 2022.

11. Mr O wrote to an MP about this complaint on 19 September 2024. This means the complaint was referred to an MP two years and two 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 reason 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 his complaint with MPS in December 2022. He received the final complaint response from MPS in March 2023.

14. We can see Mr O raised his complaint with MPS one year and five months after he became aware of the issue. This is a significant period of delay. MPS responded within three months of receiving the complaint. After Mr O received his response at local level in March 2023, it took him one and a half years to refer his complaint to an MP in September 2024. This is another significant period of delay.

15. We asked Mr O about the two large gaps in time. He told us the delay between the incident occurring in July 2021 and him making his complaint to MPS in December 2022 was because his mind was shutting down and he felt as though he could not deal with having to speak about another complaint (he had already made other complaints to MPS previously). He felt better after some therapy from February 2022 to July 2022 and felt able to complain following this in December 2022.

16. He told us he was feeling suicidal between February 2024 and February 2025. He said he was not aware of the Ombudsman until April/May 2024. He was pursuing a civil court case against MPS between April 2023 and February 2024 and he was considering whether to start High Court proceedings between February 2024 and March 2025.

17. We acknowledge that Mr O felt stressed and as though he could not complain due to having already complained about MPS previously and not wanting to go through the process again. Whilst we acknowledge the ongoing impact the previous complaints have on Mr O, we do not consider not feeling as though he could deal with speaking about his complaint is a sufficient barrier, particularly give the long period of one year and five months from his date of knowledge to raising the complaint. He did eventually raise a complaint, but we think he could have done so sooner particularly from February to July 2022 whilst he was receiving therapy and feeling better. Whilst we acknowledge the reasons he has provided, they do not justify such a long period of delay.

18. 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. 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. This however, still leaves a delay of one year from when he received his response from MPS in March 2023 to referring the matter to an MP in September 2024. 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 as able to pursue his complaint at that time, so could have referred it to an MP. As such, we have not seen any reasons for the delay between July 2021 and December 2022 and the delay between March 2023 and January 2024 that justify putting our time limit to one side, therefore we consider this issue is out of time.

Concerns about financial abuse August/September 2021

20. Mr O’s date of knowledge for not listening to his concerns about financial abuse was at the time of the incident in August/September 2021. For the issue to have been in time, he would have needed to refer his complaint to an MP by September 2022. Mr O raised the issues in this complaint with his MP in September 2024, making it two years out of time.

21. Mr O gave us the same reasons as above for the delay from becoming aware of the issue in August/September 2021 to raising his complaint with MPS in December 2022 and likewise for the delay between receiving the complaint response from MPS in March 2023 to referring the matter to an MP in September 2024.

22. We acknowledge Mr O was going through a very difficult time. As above, we do not consider not wanting to or not feeling able to speak about another complaint is a sufficient barrier to raising his complaint with MPS. We think he could have raised his complaint sooner, particularly during the period of February to July 2022 when he was receiving therapy and feeling better.

23. As above, we have accepted Mr O was unable to refer his complaint to an MP between February and August 2024 due to feeling suicidal. There is still a delay of ten months between March 2023 receiving MPS’ complaint response and January 2024, before he started to feel suicidal. As mentioned above, we do not consider Mr O pursuing a civil court case between April 2024 and February 2024 is a barrier to referring this issue to an MP.

24. As such, we have not seen any reasons for the delays that justify us putting out time limit to one side, therefore we consider this issue is out of time.

Conclusion

25. 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.

26. 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.