Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council investigated a safeguarding concern regarding her adult son Mr Y’s college. The Council was at fault as the Local Authority Designated Officer wrongly considered the concern when Mr Y is an adult. This did not cause a significant injustice to Mr Y as the college investigated the concern and put procedures in place to prevent a recurrence. The Council has also taken action to prevent this happening again. The Council was at fault when it provided Mrs X with misleading and confusing advice and delayed dealing with her complaint. It has agreed to make a payment to acknowledge the frustration this caused her.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the way the Council investigated a safeguarding concern when the college sent her son Mr Y, home in a taxi, in June 2020, without his escort. She says the Council wrongly referred the safeguarding concern to the LADO when Mr Y is an adult, it delayed carrying out the safeguarding investigation and failed to consult her properly as part of the process. When Mrs X complained about the safeguarding process the Council considered her complaint at stage 1 of its complaints procedure but refused to progress it to stage 2. This caused Mrs X distress and frustration.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. We cannot investigate complaints about what happens in schools. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 5(b), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered the information supplied by Mrs X and have discussed the complaint with her on the telephone. I have considered the Council’s response to my enquiries.
6. I gave Mrs X and the Council the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered any comments I received in reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. A council must make necessary enquiries if it has reason to think an adult may be at risk of abuse or neglect and has needs for care and support which mean he or she cannot protect himself or herself. It must also decide whether it or another person or agency should take any action to protect the person from abuse or risk. (section 42, Care Act 2014)
8. Councils have a duty to make enquiries where a child is considered to be suffering or likely to suffer significant harm The enquiries must establish the child’s situation and to determine whether protective action is required (S.47 Children Act 1989).
9. The Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) is a statutory role. They are responsible for coordinating the response to concerns that an adult who works with children may have caused them, or could cause them harm.

What happened

10. Mr Y is a young adult in his 20s with autism and communication difficulties. He attended college in the Council’s area but lives in a different council area (Council 2). Mr Y travelled to and from college by taxi with a passenger escort, arranged by Council 2. The usual procedure was for a staff member to hand Mr Y over to his passenger escort who would escort Mr Y home in the taxi.
11. On one day in June 2020 Mr Y arrived home by taxi without his escort. Mrs X was at home at the time and Mr Y returned home safely. However, Mrs X was very concerned about the potential risk of harm this caused and raised her concerns with the college.
12. The headteacher contacted the Council’s LADO.
13. The LADO advised the college to carry out a risk assessment and internal investigation. The LADO informed Council 2’s LADO and Mr Y’s social worker at Council 2. The college took immediate action and reviewed the arrangements for handing students over to passenger escorts. They reviewed the role of the staff member who allowed Mr Y to go home without his escort and ensured there was more supervision at the end of the school day.
14. The college completed its investigation in November 2020. It took disciplinary action against relevant staff. It made a number of procedural recommendations:
• Procedures for student travel arrangements should be widely available for all
• Any changes should be communicated in writing and verbally
• Risk assessments should be amended to include clearer guidelines on the use of escorts
• College should ensure transport providers are fully aware of processes regarding escorts and supervision of students
• College should ensure escorts used to support students are expected to arrive on time to meet students at end of the day
• College should ensure departure times are not brought forward to accommodate early arrival of escorts or passenger transport
15. The college apologised to Mrs X and advised her and the LADO of the outcome and advised they had implemented the recommendations. Mrs X was unhappy with the college’s investigation.
16. The LADO shared the outcome with Mr Y’s social worker at Council 2. The social worker contacted adult social care at the Council with concerns the incident was investigated under the children’s procedure and not under the adult safeguarding procedures. This was because the LADO mistakenly believed Mr Y was under 18.
17. Mrs X called the LADO to discuss her concerns and following this complained to the Council that the LADO’s advice had hindered the concern from progressing and had compromised her son’s safety and wellbeing.
18. The LADO contacted Adult Services to consider whether a safeguarding enquiry was necessary. The Council registered the safeguarding concern in December 2020 and decided to proceed to an investigation.
19. The Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint at stage one of its complaints’ procedure in January 2021. It accepted the LADO failed to check Mr Y’s date of birth. It had now put measures in place to ensure for each contact received the date of birth was shared and checked. It apologised the LADO’s involvement led to a delay in the college referring the concern to adult safeguarding. However it considered the LADO’[s involvement had not impacted on the lessons learnt by the college nor did it have an adverse impact on Mr Y. It advised Mrs X that if she was unhappy, she could progress to the next stage of the Council’s complaints’ procedure.
20. Mrs X remained unhappy and asked to progress to the next stage. The Council advised it would not deal with the complaint at the next stage as it was being investigated under the adult safeguarding process. Mrs X responded that the complaint was separate from the safeguarding investigation.
21. The safeguarding investigation substantiated the allegation that the incident at the college was neglect by the college in its duty of care to Mr Y. It was satisfied the college had investigated the concern and learned from incident. It substantiated Mrs X’s complaint there were delays and a lack of communication with her and Mr Y in the internal safeguarding investigations by the college. It also substantiated her complaint there were delays and errors by the Council in progressing the safeguarding. It apologised for the delays in carrying out the investigation.
22. The investigator tried to arrange a date for the safeguarding case conference in January 2021 and again in February 2021 but was unable to find a suitable date for all parties. The case conference was held in March 2021. Mrs X attended. The case conference found Mrs X’s concerns substantiated. The Council reviewed its processes to ensure there was a clear pathway for future safeguarding referrals for young adults.
23. The Council sent Mrs X a final response in April 2021. It apologised for the misleading information about proceeding to the next stage of the complaints’ procedure. It explained the delay in referring the matter to adult safeguarding did not impact on the lessons learned by the school following the incident as measures were put in place immediately to ensure Mr Y was never left alone in a taxi again.
24. It apologised for the delay in organising the safeguarding case conference. It accepted there was a lack of communication between Mrs X, Adult Services and Children’s Services in properly signposting and organising the meeting.

Findings

25. The Council was at fault when it failed to treat the initial incident as a safeguarding concern through the adult safeguarding procedures when Mrs X first raised her concerns about the college’s actions in June 2020. However, the college investigated the concern through its own internal safeguarding procedures, took disciplinary action against relevant staff and implemented recommendations to prevent any possible recurrence of the fault. When the Council undertook a safeguarding investigation, it was satisfied with the actions the college had taken. Therefore, this fault did not cause a significant injustice.
26. As a result of the investigation, the Council put in place measures to ensure the date of birth is recorded and checked for each contact with the service to ensure matters are dealt with appropriately. This was appropriate
27. Mrs X was unhappy with time taken by the college to conduct the investigation and that it did not involve her or keep her updated. I cannot comment on the college’s actions as we have no jurisdiction to investigate internal school matters.
28. When Mrs X complained to the Council about the LADO’s actions the Council gave her confusing and misleading advice about progressing to the next stage of the complaints’ procedure. This was acknowledged in the safeguarding investigation and accepted when the Council finally responded to Mrs X at the next stage of its complaints’ procedure. This caused Mrs X frustration.
29. There was a delay in organising the safeguarding case conference. The Council says the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent lockdown contributed to the difficulties in arranging this and so I fall short of calling this fault. However, the Council acknowledged there was a lack of communication between Mrs X and the Council in properly signposting and organising the case conference.
30. They Council has already apologised in its complaint response and at the safeguarding case conference for the inconvenience caused to Mrs X. It has also undertaken service improvements to prevent a recurrence of the fault. There is nothing else I could achieve by investigating this matter further. However, Mrs X was caused frustration by the faults identified.

Back to top

Agreed action

31. Within one month of the date of the final decision the Council has agreed to pay Mrs X £100 to acknowledge the frustration caused by the faults identified.

Back to top

Final decision

32. I have completed my investigation. There was evidence of fault causing injustice which the Council has agreed to remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman