Summary: Mr X complained about the outcome and timeliness of the Council’s safeguarding investigation into his actions as a carer. The Council was not at fault in how it carried out the safeguarding investigation. It was at fault for its communication and complaints handling. This caused Mr X unnecessary distress and uncertainty. To remedy this, the Council has agreed to make a payment to Mr X and to amend its complaints policy.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about how the Council dealt with a safeguarding investigation into his actions as a carer. Mr X says:
• the outcome of the Council’s investigation was incorrect and not in line with the Police’s investigation; and
• the Council unreasonably delayed in its investigation.
2. He also complained the Council did not consider his complaint properly.
3. Mr X says this caused him and his family distress. He also says it meant he lost money while suspended from work.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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)
6. 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)
7. The Ombudsman cannot make judgements on loss of earnings. This is for the courts to decide.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I have considered:
• all the information Mr X provided and discussed the complaint with him;
• the Council’s comments about the complaint and the supporting documents it provided; and
• Council policies, relevant law and guidance and the Ombudsman's guidance on remedies.
9. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

The Children Act 1989

10. Section 47 of the Act says councils must make enquiries when they suspect a child is suffering (or may be suffering) significant harm.

‘Working together to safeguard children 2018’

11. This document says councils should have policies for managing allegations against people who work with children.
12. It says councils should designate a particular officer, or team of officers, to manage and oversee allegations against people who work with children. These officers are sometimes referred to as LADOs (local authority designated officers).

Council policies

13. The Council is part of the Cheshire West and Chester Safeguarding Children Partnership (the Partnership). It includes the Police and two local NHS Clinical Commissioning Groups. The Partnership works together to co-ordinate safeguarding work for children in the Council’s area. As the body responsible for safeguarding, the Ombudsman considers the Council is the lead authority in the Partnership and retains authority over its decisions.
14. The Partnership’s policy, “Safeguarding Children Partnership Online Procedures” says the LADO will decide what action bodies should take in response to the allegation. This includes what action should be taken to protect other children involved.
15. The policy says cases should be dealt with quickly and without undue delays. The LADO should monitor the progress of cases through regular review meetings. The policy does not state how regular the meetings should be.
16. It says there are five possible outcomes of investigations into allegations against a child or young person.
• Substantiated.
• Unfounded. Unfounded allegations are those where there is evidence to disprove an allegation, or where information is misinterpreted.
• Malicious.
• Unsubstantiated. Unsubstantiated allegations are where there is insufficient evidence to prove or disprove an allegation. It does not suggest guilt or innocence.
• False. False allegations are where there is evidence an event did not happen.
17. The Council’s “LADO Strategy Meeting Agenda” states there are four possible outcomes to a LADO investigation. They are the same as the “Safeguarding Children Partnership Online Procedures”, but ‘false’ is missing.
18. The Council’s corporate complaints policy says it will send a written response to complaints within 20 working days. If the complainant is still unhappy, they can request a stage 2 investigation. If the Council decides the complaint is eligible for a stage 2 response, it will respond between 20 and 40 working days.

What happened

19. Mr X works as an agency carer and foster carer. Mr X cares for three foster children. Two are the responsibility of another Council (Council B).
20. In May 2019, Mr X was involved in an incident in his role as an agency carer where he restrained a young person. The incident was referred to the Council and the Police began an investigation.
21. The LADO held a strategy meeting in early June 2019 to decide what action to take in response to the allegations. Mr X was suspended from work and was not allowed to be around his foster children unsupervised.
22. The LADO held two review meetings in late June for updates on the case.
23. In mid-July, the Police completed their investigation and decided Mr X’s actions were proportionate and justified. The Police shared the outcome of its investigation with the relevant bodies.
24. The day after the end of the Police investigation, the LADO contacted the relevant bodies to ask them to attend a review meeting in mid-August.
25. The LADO cancelled the mid-August meeting on the day because only the foster agency came to the meeting. The Police, care agency and a social worker from Council B did not attend. She did not receive any advance warning the bodies would not be at the meeting.
26. In mid-September, the LADO held a final review meeting. The LADO, Police, Mr X’s foster agency and care agency attended the meeting.
27. The meeting attendees considered the police report. The Partnership concluded the allegation was ‘unsubstantiated’.
28. The Council told Mr X the outcome of the investigation the same day. Mr X was then allowed to return to work and spend time with his foster children alone.
29. Mr X was unhappy with the LADO’s decision. He asked the Council to explain its decision. He also said the decision took too long.
30. In October 2019, the Council responded to Mr X’s complaint. It said:
• there were only four possible outcomes to a LADO investigation. These were substantiated, malicious, unsubstantiated and false. It did not include unfounded; and
• it was satisfied the LADO made the correct outcome decision and completed the investigation as soon as possible.
31. Mr X then asked the Council to escalate his complaint to the second stage.
32. In November 2019, the Council responded to say it could not consider complaints about decisions made by the Partnership because it was a multi-agency body. It said it dealt with Mr X’s first complaint informally, and there was no option to escalate his complaint to a second stage. It also said:
• it was satisfied the outcome of the investigation was correct;
• the time taken to hold the meeting after the Police completed their investigation was not unreasonable;
• it would raise Mr X’s concerns with the Partnership. It would ask the Partnership to publish more information on how it keeps relevant parties informed of progress and who is responsible for dealing with complaints about the process for investigations.
33. In its response to my enquiries, the Council said:
• it uses the five categories as set out in “Safeguarding Children Partnership Online Procedures”; and
• the Partnership had not yet decided who was responsible for dealing with complaints about investigations into staff. It said this work was halted due to the COVID-19 pandemic but is now being looked at again.

Findings

Delay

34. The Council has a duty to make enquiries where it thinks a child is experiencing harm or at risk of harm. This can be a complex and time-consuming process due to the multiple agencies involved. Although the Partnership’s policy does not specify a timescale for review meetings, the Ombudsman considers around 28 days to be appropriate considering multiple bodies are involved.
35. The LADO organised regular review meetings while the Police investigation was ongoing. She chased bodies when she was concerned there were delays in responses.
36. The outcome of the LADO investigation was a multi-agency decision. When the meeting in mid-August was cancelled at the last minute, the LADO took appropriate action to rearrange it so that the relevant agencies could attend. Although I recognise Mr X was not able to work and had restricted access to his foster children for a significant period of time, the Council was not at fault.

Outcome of investigation

37. Mr X does not think the Council should have decided on an outcome of ‘unsubstantiated’. However, the Partnership considered the Police report and used its judgement to decide the outcome category. I am satisfied the Council used the five categories set out in the Partnership policy. Therefore, there is no evidence of fault in how the Council came to its decision.
38. The Council’s communication with Mr X about the outcome categories was flawed. In its complaint response, it provided a list of categories which differed to two policies available on its website. This was fault and meant Mr X could not be certain the Council considered the outcome correctly.

Complaint handling

39. The Council says the Partnership is discussing who is responsible for dealing with complaints about its actions. However, as the lead authority, the Council was ultimately responsible for the Partnership’s response to child safety concerns. It was therefore also responsible for responding to complaints about investigations carried out by the Partnership.
40. The Council was at fault for failing to respond to Mr X’s complaint using its complaint procedure and for failing to explain this to him in its first response. This meant Mr X did not have the opportunity to have an independent stage 2 review of his complaint.

Agreed action

41. Within one month of the date of my final decision the Council will:
• apologise to Mr X for the faults identified in this decision statement; and
• pay him £250 to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty he experienced.
42. Within three months of the date of my final decision, the Council will:
• amend its complaints policy to include that it can consider complaints about the actions of the Partnership in responding to child safety concerns.

Back to top

Final decision

43. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault leading to personal injustice. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy that injustice and prevent reoccurrence of this fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman