Summary

Mr Y complains the Council did not follow safeguarding procedures correctly. The Council failed to tell him about allegations made against him, or provide an opportunity for him to refute the allegations and provide supporting evidence.

The complaint

Mr Y complains the Council did not follow safeguarding procedures correctly. The Council failed to tell him about allegations made against him, or provide an opportunity for him to refute the allegations and provide supporting evidence. Mr Y says officers from the Council failed to update him, and a staff member threatened him. Mr Y says there was a data breach by the Council who told his wife, Mrs Y, information about the investigation before it told him. Mr Y says the Council’s failures led to his rejection from a university course, and losing hours from a work placement. Mr Y also says it affected his future earning potential. Mr Y feels there was a vendetta against him and his wife.

 

Finding

The Ombudsman upheld the complaint and found fault causing injustice.

Recommendations

T oremedy the injustice caused we recommend the Council should:

• apologise to Mr Y for its failure to properly record a safeguarding investigation and the uncertainty this causes;
• pay Mr Y £400 to recognise the impact of avoidable delay, distress, uncertainty and time and trouble caused by the faults identified in this report;
• provide us with a copy of its current procedure, and say how it complies with current law and guidance. (The legislative framework on safeguarding investigations has changed since the events of  his complaint); and
• remind all relevant staff of the importance of accurately recording safeguarding meetings and decisions. Recording should show how the Council reached a decision. This should be communicated to staff, and evidence provided to us.

Ombudsman satisfied with the council's response: 17 April 2018.

Print this page