Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council responded to safeguarding concerns about him. That is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about how the Council’s Local Authority Designated Officer (the LADO) oversaw an investigation into safeguarding concerns about him. He said the LADO:
• incorrectly told him he would not be able to work as a sports coach in the future;
• failed to update him about the progress of the investigation;
• did not forward on an email sent by the Police;
• breached data protection legislation and
• failed to provide support as set out in the Fostering Services National Minimum Standards.
2. Mr X said the Council’s actions have affected his health, his income and are a defamation of character. He says he is unable to currently work as a sports coach.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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,
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome,
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

4. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
7. Mr X had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The Council started a LADO enquiry in April 2021, after it received historic allegations of abuse against Mr X. It held multi-agency meetings with the Police to discuss those concerns and plan the enquiry. The Police started an investigation running alongside the LADO enquiries.
9. Ms X complained the LADO told him that he would not be able to work as a sports coach in the future even if the outcome of the safeguarding enquiry was favourable. The Council has apologised for that comment in its complaint response. It states it has addressed it with the LADO.
10. The Council has also apologised for not keeping Mr X updated about the progress of its enquiries. Following that, it provided Mr X an update within 24 hours of its next enquiry meeting. It confirmed it would hold the next meeting in February 2022, and it would update him following that. It confirmed that once the Council had concluded the enquiry it would confirm that with him.
11. We will not investigate these complaints further. The Council has apologised and taken appropriate action. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
12. Mr X says that he is unable to work as a sports coach based on advice provided by the LADO. He also says the LADO failed to share an email sent by the Police, to the sporting association he coached for. He said that email confirmed the Police were happy for Mr X to coach with appropriate safeguards in place.
13. It is a decision of the sporting association Mr X works for whether he remained in role as a coach whilst the Police and LADO completed their investigations. Mr X has sent the sporting association a copy of the Police email therefore, it has that information available as part of its decision making. Therefore, there is nothing to suggest the Council’s decision not to share that email has caused Mr X a significant injustice.
14. Mr X says the Council has breached data protection legislation because of information it shared about the allegations with the sporting association. Complaints about data protection are best dealt with by the Information Commissioner’s Office and it would be reasonable for Mr X to complain to them if he is unhappy about how the Council handled his personal data.
15. Mr X also said the Council has not provided support whilst it is completing its enquiries. The Council has explained that Mr X is no-longer a foster carer therefore not eligible to the support set out in the fostering National Minimum Standards. There is not enough evidence of fault in that decision to warrant further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman