Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a safeguarding concern. This is because any fault by the Council did not cause the complainant an injustice significant enough to warrant our further involvement.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will call Miss X, complains about how the Council’s Local Area Designated Officer (LADO), dealt with a safeguarding referral. Miss X says the LADO contacted her directly in contravention of its policy. She also says the LADO failed to provide her with information about the Council’s complaints process, and that the Council’s complaint handling was poor.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

3. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In 2021, a safeguarding concern was made about Miss X to the Council’s LADO. The safeguarding concern was subsequently found to be malicious.
7. I will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council’s LADO contacted her during the investigation process. I accept that the Council’s policy states that the LADO should not contact the person subject to the allegation. However, having considered this point carefully, I do not see how this contact caused a Miss X a significant enough injustice to justify our further involvement. The email was sent to Miss X to explain the role of the LADO and the investigation process, and details of the allegation were not discussed.
8. I will also not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the LADO failed to provide her with information about the Council’s complaints process. This is because I do not consider this to have caused Miss X a significant injustice. Miss X was able to submit a complaint to the council, albeit with a relatively short delay. Furthermore, the Council apologised to Miss X for not providing her with the information she requested.
9. Finally, I will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council’s complaint handling was poor. As we are not dealing with the substantive issues in Miss X’s complaint, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate the council’s complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because the issues she raised did not cause her a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman