DSV -v- Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LON-004734

In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
Administrative Court

In the matter of an application for judicial review

8 May 2026

Before:

Karen Ridge,
sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

Between:

The King
on the application of
DSV
(Claimant)

-v-

Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman
(Defendant)

and

Coventry City Council
(Interested Party)

Order

Notification of the Judge’s decision on the application for permission to apply for judicial review and for anonymity

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Resistance filed by the Defendant

ORDER by Karen Ridge sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

  1. Anonymity:

(a) Under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and pursuant to s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 the Claimant’s name is to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public and the Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as DSV.

(b) Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimant or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.

(c) Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4):
(i) the parties must within 7 days file and serve a redacted copy of any
statement of case already filed, omitting the name, address and any other information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant;
(ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant, a redacted copy omitting that information must be filed at the same time and must then be served with the unredacted version;
(iii) unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4C(6), no non- party many obtain a copy of any unredacted statement of case.
(d) The Court’s CE-file system shall be clearly marked with the words “An anonymity order was made in this case on 7 May 2026 and any application by a non-party to inspect or obtain a copy document from this file must be dealt with in accordance with the terms of that order.”
(e) Any person wishing to vary or discharge this Order must make an application, served on each party.
(f) Pursuant to CPR 39.2(5) and the Practice Guidance: Publication of Privacy and Anonymity Orders dated 16 April 2019 a copy of this order shall be published on the Judicial Website of the High Court of Justice (www.judiciary.uk). For that purpose, a court officer will send a copy of the order by email to the Judicial Office at judicialwebupdates@judiciary.uk.

  1. Extension of Time: The Claimant’s request for an extension of time is refused.
  2. Permission: Permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
  3. Costs: The Claimant must pay the Defendant’s costs of preparing the Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence, summarily assessed in the sum of £2,970.
  4. Further provision as to costs:

(a) Where the Claimant does not make a valid request for reconsideration of the decision to refuse permission to apply for judicial review (see notes below):

(i) Within 14 days of the date of this Order, the Claimant may file and serve a notice of objection (maximum 3 pages) showing why the order in paragraph 4 should not be made. The notice should include any objections to the principle that costs should be paid and/or as to the amount assessed.

(ii) If the Claimant does not file and serve a notice of objection within that period, paragraph 4 is a final order, and the Claimant must pay the sum specified within 14 days of the date of this Order (in accordance with CPR 44.7(1)(a)).

(iii) If the Claimant files and serves a notice of objection in accordance
with (i) above:

  • the other party may, within 14 days after the date on which the notice is served, file and serve submissions in response (maximum 3 pages);
  • if the other party files and serves on the Claimant, submissions in response, the Claimant may, within 7 days after the date on which the other party’s submissions in response are served, file and serve reply submissions (maximum 3 pages);
  • the Court will determine the appropriate costs order on the papers;
  • any costs ordered must be paid within 14 days of the date of
    the Court’s order (in accordance with CPR 44.7(1)(a)), unless the
    Court specifies another date.

(b) Where the Claimant makes a valid request for reconsideration (see notes below):

(i) Paragraph 4 does not become final in relation to the costs payable to any party unless, insofar as it relates to that party:

  • the Claimant withdraws the application for permission; or
  • permission to apply for judicial review is refused on all grounds after a hearing.

(ii) If the Claimant wishes to contend that the order in paragraph 4 should not be made even if permission is refused on all grounds, the Claimant must within 14 days after the date of this Order file and serve (together with the request for reconsideration) a notice of objection (maximum 3 pages). The notice should include any objections to the principle that costs should be paid and/or as to the amount assessed.

(iii) If the Claimant files and serves a notice of objection in accordance with (ii) above:

  • the other party may, within 7 days after the date on which the notice is served, file and serve submissions in response (maximum 3 pages);
  • if the other party files and serves on the Claimant, submissions in response, the Claimant may, within 7 days after the date on which those submissions are served, file and serve reply submissions (maximum 3 pages);
  • the Court will determine what costs order to make at or after the permission hearing;
  • any costs ordered must be paid within 14 days of the date of the Court’s order (in accordance with CPR 44.7(1)(a)), unless the Court specifies another date.

4. Renewal directions: Where the Claimant makes a valid request for reconsideration (see notes below), the following directions apply:

    (a) The permission hearing is to be listed with a time estimate of 30 minutes, including submissions by the parties and an oral judgment by the judge. If the Claimant considers that more time should be allowed, the time estimate must be included with the request for reconsideration of permission.

    (b) Within 21 days of the service of this Order, the Claimant must file and serve an electronic copy of the Permission Hearing Bundle, prepared in accordance with the guidance on the Administrative Court website and containing the following documents:

    (i) the Claim Form, Statement of Facts and Grounds and any evidence or other documents filed with the Claim Form;

    (ii) any Acknowledgment of Service, Summary Grounds of Defence and any accompanying documents served by any Defendant and/or Interested Party;

    (iii) any Reply or other document served by any party to the proceedings at the paper permission stage;

    (iv) this Order;

    (v) the renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review (on Form 86B);

    (vi) any other document the Court would be likely to consider material to its decision on permission to apply for judicial review.

    (c) If the Claimant fails to comply with sub-paragraph (b), permission will be determined on the basis of the renewal notice and the documents before the Court at the paper stage, unless at the hearing the Court otherwise directs.

    (d) At least 7 days before the date listed for the hearing, the Claimant must file and serve:

    (i) a skeleton argument, maximum 10 pages;

    (ii) an electronic bundle containing any authorities which the Court needs to read at the hearing (the Authorities Bundle: see para. 22.1.2 of the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide); and

    (iii) if requested by the Court, a hard copy version of the Permission
    Hearing Bundle and Authorities Bundles.

    (e) At least 7 days before the date listed for the hearing, any party other than the Claimant intending to participate in the hearing must file and serve any skeleton argument, maximum 10 pages.

    (f) If a party fails to comply with sub-paragraph (b), (d) and/or (e), the Court may have regard to the failure when considering any question about costs at the hearing.

    Reasons

    1. Anonymity: The Claimant has set out security concerns in relation to his identity. In addition, the claim concerns arrangements in relation to his elderly and vulnerable mother and other sensitive details. The case can be fully reported without the Claimant being named. There are accordingly compelling reasons for a limited derogation from the principle of open justice.
    2. The Claimant seeks permission to bring a claim for judicial review of the Defendant’s review decision of the 4 September 2025. That decision confirmed an earlier decision of the Defendant not to investigate the Claimant’s complaint into the conduct of the Interested Party (the Council) when they made a referral to the police under the Modern Slavery Act 2015.
    3. Promptness: The impugned decision was made on 4 September 2025. The Claimant says that he submitted his application for judicial review to the court on 3 December 2025 but that it was rejected on 19 December 2025 for administrative failures. The application was refiled that same day and accepted and it was issued on 8 January 2026.
    4. The rules require that judicial review claims are commenced promptly and, in any event, within 3 months of the decision complained of. This is to ensure finality in relation to the decisions of public bodies, and it is in the interests of good administration. The expectation within the Administrative Court Guide is that all parties, including litigants in person will comply with the filing and procedural requirements. The failure to adhere to procedural requirements in this case has led to the claim being filed and served beyond the 3-month deadline. That deadline is not a target; it is a back stop and the very latest date on which proceedings should be commenced.
    5. In the circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that the claim was not commenced promptly and that there was no good reason for it being issued outside the 3-month time period. I therefore refuse to exercise discretion to extend the time as requested. In any event I am satisfied that permission should be refused on the merits for the reasons below.
    6. Ground 1: It is not arguable that the Ombudsman applied the wrong test. The role of the Ombudsman is to investigate alleged or apparent maladministration or service failure in connection with the exercise of administrative functions. The Ombudsman has a discretion under the terms of the act to decide whether to investigate, the exercise of that discretion involves a high degree of subjective judgment. The Court’s role is supervisory; it will only intervene if the Ombudsman has misdirected himself as a matter of law or has made a decision which is Wednesbury unreasonable.
    7. The Council had concluded that the threshold for referral to the police was met following the home visit because there were potential indicators of modern slavery. Those indicators are set out at 21.1 to 21.7 of the Defendant’s Summary Grounds of Defence (SGD). Some of the factual inaccuracies in the internal communications which had provided grounds for referral were later corrected.
    8. The decision when read as a whole makes it clear that the Ombudsman was considering whether the referral constituted maladministration. The Ombudsman took on board that there had been some inaccuracies in the information but concluded that, even when those inaccurate statements, were removed from the equation, the Council had grounds to make a referral. The Ombudsman had a wide discretion in deciding whether to investigate a complaint or make a finding of maladministration. It is not arguable that a lower or incorrect test for maladministration was applied.
    9. Ground 2: alleges that decision was irrational because of a failure to properly consider the contradictory evidence in terms of the planks on which the referral was made. Irrationality is a high bar. It is clear that the Ombudsman was fully aware of all of the evidence before the Council, including the evidence which appeared to contradict some of the assertions in the referral. The Council’s concerns about the CCTV use were wider than the recording of the meeting and included information that the Claimant had provided regarding the wider use of CCTV.
    10. The Ombudsman further considered the revisions to the account of the social worker and the Modern Slavery Lead in relation to the sleeping arrangements of the PA and the keeping of his passport. The Ombudsman was concerned with faults within the referral process and that included the corrections made to the evidence and a full consideration of the range of concerns which the Council had.
    11. Ground 3: the Claimant contends that the reasons provided are inadequate. The decision, which was contained within the first decision and the review decision, was directed to someone familiar with the facts of the case. The decision dealt with the key points in issue and provided an explanation for the conclusions arrived at. It is not arguable that those reasons were inadequate.
    12. Costs: The Defendant applies for its costs in the preparation of the Acknowledgement of Service. I see no reason to demur from the usual rule that a successful Defendant should recover those costs. They are summarily assessed at £2,970.

    Signed: Karen Ridge