Summary: The Council was not at fault for its response to Mrs X’s allegation about a teaching assistant at her son’s school. Its designated officer properly considered the allegation and followed correct procedure.

The complaint

1. The complainant (Mrs X) complains about the Council’s response to an allegation she made against her son’s school. I refer to her son as Y.
2. Mrs X says the Council conducted an assessment which focused on her parenting and on Y’s home environment, rather than addressing the allegation.
3. Mrs X is unhappy that the Council’s assessment contained information about previous social work involvement with her family. She also says the Council promised to write a letter saying Y needed to change schools, but it did not do so.

Back to top

What I have investigated

4. I have investigated how the Council’s responded to Mrs B’s allegation. The final two paragraphs of this decision statement set out the matters I did not investigate.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
7. 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

8. I considered information from Mrs X and the Council.
9. I wrote to Mrs X and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened?

The Children Act 1989

10. Section 17 of the Act sets out the duties and powers of councils in respect of children who are ‘in need’. Councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to identify such children within their area and, when identified, to assess their needs.
11. Section 47 says councils must make enquiries when they suspect a child is suffering (or may be suffering) significant harm.

‘Working together to safeguard children 2018’

12. This document (statutory guidance on inter-agency children’s safeguarding) says councils should designate a particular officer, or team of officers, to manage and oversee allegations against people who work with children.
13. These officers are referred to as LADOs (local authority designated officers).

The Council’s ‘procedures for safeguarding children’ manual

14. After receiving an allegation against a person who works with children, the Council will refer the allegation to its LADO.
15. There are three possible approaches to investigate an allegation:
• a Police investigation;
• enquiries under section 47 of the Children Act; and/or
• disciplinary action by the employer.
16. If there is not likely to be a risk of significant harm to a child, but a Police investigation may be needed, the LADO will discuss the allegation with the Police and the employer. This discussion does not need to be face-to-face.
17. If the Police are conducting a criminal investigation, the LADO will consider whether any disciplinary investigation should run alongside it.
18. The decision to suspend a person’s contact with children or to pursue disciplinary action is that of the employer. If they will not follow the LADO’s recommendations, the matter will be referred to the local safeguarding children board.
19. The LADO will regularly monitor the progress of the case, either by holding review meetings or by seeking information from the Police, the employer or others.
20. If an allegation is substantiated, the employer should consider what further action, if any, to take. If the employer decides to take no further action, the LADO will ensure the child’s parents are told why.
21. The manual also says that, when assessing a child’s needs, the Council will use the ‘common assessment framework’, which “covers all needs, not just the needs that individual services are most interested in”.

What happened?

22. In July 2019 Mrs X reported to the Council that a teaching assistant had assaulted Y at school. She said he had a red mark on his arms from when they had been grabbed. She also reported the incident to the Police.
23. The Council’s LADO considered the allegation Mrs X had made. He also referred the allegation to the Council’s social work department as it was about an alleged assault of a child.
24. The Council’s social work department decided that, as Y was at home for the summer holidays, he was not likely to be at risk of significant harm.
25. As the ‘significant harm’ threshold was not met, the LADO decided the allegations would be investigated by the Police (who were already investigating the incident) and the school, rather than children’s social care.
26. However, although the Council’s social work department decided not to make enquiries under section 47 of the Children Act, it decided that – as Y had allegedly been assaulted – it still needed further information about his welfare.

The Council’s assessment

27. The Council began its assessment shortly after receiving the referral. Its social worker spoke to Y about the incident and looked at his alleged injuries. It also viewed photographs Mrs X had taken of Y’s arms shortly after the incident.
28. The assessment document sets out the Council’s consideration of C’s needs under the common assessment framework. This did not just focus on the alleged assault, but included the areas of child development, parenting capacity, and family and environmental factors.
29. The document says Mrs X did not give her consent for the Council to seek information from certain other agencies, and did not want further social work input. Because of this, and as the Council’s social worker had no concerns about Y’s welfare, the Council closed his case at the end of August 2019.

The LADO’s consideration

30. The Police started investigating Mrs X’s allegation in July 2019. However, as the school was closed for the summer holidays, they did not succeed in progressing their investigation until the end of August. The LADO sought regular updates from the Police during this period.
31. The LADO found out about the end of the Council’s social work involvement in early September.
32. Y returned to school soon afterwards. The Police had still not concluded their investigation, and the teaching assistant was still working at the school. The LADO contacted the school about this, and it agreed to put measures in place to prevent contact between Y and the teaching assistant. It also agreed to complete an internal investigation into the incident.
33. The following week the Police told the LADO there was not enough evidence to proceed with a criminal investigation.
34. Shortly afterwards the school told the LADO it had completed its investigation and it was satisfied that no further action should be taken against the teaching assistant. It provided details of the investigation. It said witness accounts did not support Mrs X’s allegation, but did support the teaching assistant’s account.
35. The LADO informed Mrs X that, after consideration of the social work assessment, and information received from the Police, the school and herself, there was no evidence that the teaching assistant behaved in a way which had harmed a child, or which indicated she may pose a risk to children. He told her that no further action would be taken.
36. After this, Mrs X provided further information to the Police about the incident. The Police considered the information, but told the LADO there was still not enough evidence to proceed with a criminal investigation. The LADO logged this information and took no further action.

My findings

37. Mrs X’s complaint is that, after she made an allegation that Y was assaulted by a teaching assistant, the Council failed to investigate. She says the Council instead focused its assessment on her parenting and Y’s home environment.
38. When a council receives a referral which raises concerns a child’s welfare, it is under the legal duty to decide whether the child may be in need or suffering significant harm. It must then decide how to respond.
39. If the council decides the child may be in need, it must assess those needs.
40. In Y’s case the Council decided Y was not at risk of significant harm, and explained why. This was the Council’s decision to make, and I have seen no evidence that the decision was unreasonable. Y was away from school for six weeks, so he was not likely to be at risk.
41. However, the Council decided that, given Mrs X’s allegation, it needed more information about Y’s welfare. As it did not believe he was at risk of significant harm, it decided to get this information by assessing his needs under section 17 of the Children Act. This, again, was the Council’s decision to make.
42. As the Council’s approach was to assess Y under section 17, its assessment focused on Y and all his needs (in line with the common assessment framework) rather than just the alleged assault. Although Mrs X was unhappy with this, it was not fault by the Council.
43. However, although the Council did not consider Y to be at risk of significant harm, it was still under the duty to consider Mrs X’s allegation and to decide what to do.
44. There is clear evidence that the Council’s LADO considered the allegation and took action in response. He coordinated investigations by the Police and the school, sought information from all agencies involved, and monitored the progress of the case. The evidence I have seen suggests he acted in line with correct procedure when doing so.
45. In my view, this means there was no fault in how the Council considered Mrs X’s allegation. Because of this, I cannot question the decision that the allegation was unsubstantiated, and I have found no fault with the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

46. The Council was not at fault for its response to Mrs X’s allegation about a teaching assistant at Y’s school.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

47. I did not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council included information in its assessment about previous social work involvement with her family. Including a summary of a family’s social care history is not unusual in an assessment, and its inclusion was at the Council’s discretion. Because of this, it is unlikely I would find fault with the Council.
48. I did not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council failed to write a letter saying Y needed to change schools. It is Mrs X’s decision to change Y’s school, and she does not need the Council’s support, so it is unlikely I would find fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman