Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about safeguarding children in a sports setting. Investigation is not warranted by any possible injustice to Mr X. And there is no reason to exercise discretion to consider possible injustice to unnamed other persons caused by any fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about safeguarding children in a sports setting.

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. We may investigate matters coming to our attention during an investigation, if we consider that a member of the public who has not complained may have suffered an injustice as a result. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26D and 34E, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. Naming the exact nature of the sports setting would risk revealing its location and prejudice Mr X’s anonymity, so I have not done so.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The complaint concerns possible harm to children in a sports setting near where Mr X lives. There is no injustice to Mr X. However, we can consider if a person who has not complained may have suffered harm. Such a person might be a named child in whom the complainant has an interest. Children cannot be expected to complain themselves.
8. Mr X did not name a child in his complaint to us. The Council told us it had only received a generalised complaint about the risk to children at the sports setting and had held a safeguarding strategy meeting to consider this. That is what I would expect it to do and is not evidence of fault.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:

• there has been no injustice to Mr X from safeguarding matters; and
• there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate on behalf of a child who has not complained because there has been no child named in whom Mr X has an interest. Any investigation by us would be speculative; and
• there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in responding to a generalised referral about the sports setting.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman