Summary: The Council was not at fault for how it dealt with an allegation about Miss B’s care of a child she was looking after. It acted in line with relevant guidance and procedure, considered Miss B’s representations in full, and explained the reasons behind its decision-making. This means we cannot question its decision on the allegation – as we have no power to question decisions made without fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Miss B, worked as a carer for disabled young people. She was employed directly by their parents and provided care in her own home.
2. Miss B complains about how the Council dealt with an allegation which had been made, by a child’s parent, about the care she had provided to their child. I refer to the child as X.
3. Miss B says:
• The Council failed to consider all the evidence she had available before deciding the allegation was substantiated. Specifically, it failed to properly take account of the fact that X had been placed in her care by the Council without proper support, and it was this lack of support which led to the incident in question.
• The Council failed to notify her of its decision, and she was not told how she could challenge it.
4. Miss B says the Council’s mistakes have caused her a significant amount of distress. She also says she has suffered a loss of earnings. She wants the Council to reconsider its decision.

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.
6. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
7. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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 Miss B and the Council.
9. I considered:
• The 2018 children’s social care statutory guidance document, ‘Working together to safeguard children’.
• The Council’s procedure for managing allegations against people who work with children.
• Good practice guidance published by the ‘National LADO Network’ on managing allegations against independent providers (who have no organisation or management structure).
10. Miss B 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

Law, policy and guidance

11. Every council should have an officer, or team of officers, to manage and oversee allegations against people who work with children. These officers are routinely referred to as local authority designated officers (LADOs). (Working together to safeguard children 2018)
12. LADOs provide advice and guidance to employers and voluntary organisations on dealing with allegations against employees or volunteers. They should ensure information is shared effectively between relevant agencies. They should also monitor the progress of cases and should ensure cases are dealt with consistently, fairly and without delay. (Working together to safeguard children 2018)
13. When the Council is overseeing the response to an allegation, the person against whom the allegation has been made should be given a full opportunity to answer it. (Doncaster Safeguarding Children Partnership Online Procedures)
14. Although LADOs do not usually investigate allegations themselves – this is normally the role of an employer – when the person is an independent provider (and therefore has no employing organisation) the LADO may be the only person who is suitable to contact them and seek their views. The LADO may also be the only person who is suitable to make a referral to the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) if this is needed. (National LADO Network good practice guidance)

What happened

The allegation

15. In late October 2021, the Council emailed Miss B and asked her to look after X for a night. This became several nights, and X was still with Miss X a fortnight later. The Council periodically emailed Miss B and told her X was staying for longer.
16. In early November, Miss B told X’s mother that she had left X in her home while she went to the shop. X’s mother was unhappy with this; Miss B responded that she had not, in fact, left X alone, and she was “winding [X’s mother] up”. She said there had been another worker there.

The Council’s handling of the allegation

17. This matter was passed to the Council’s LADO, who spoke to Miss B. She denied leaving X on his own, before admitting that she had done so. She accepted that she had been in the wrong.
18. The LADO arranged a meeting with several relevant professionals to discuss the allegation. She decided it would not be appropriate to invite parents of the children Miss B looked after, although they were technically her employers.
19. Professionals at the meeting shared various concerns, recent and historical. They decided Miss B should not work with children until the allegation could be investigated. The LADO agreed to gain further information from various sources and to notify Miss B, neighbouring authorities who also use Miss B’s services, and relevant parents.
20. The LADO spoke to Miss B, and said she should not look after any children – or allow anyone else to look after children in her home – until the investigation was complete. The LADO said parents of children she looked after would be advised to suspend her.
21. In December, the Council held another meeting. The LADO had completed all the main actions from the first meeting. She read out a statement from Miss B, who blamed the Council for overloading her with work. Miss B said she had not been provided with a care plan for X and had received no support from the Council.
22. The attendees of the meeting noted that Miss B was responsible for deciding whether she was able to look after a child. The Council’s view at that point was also that it had no role in ‘placing’ X, as this was a private arrangement between Miss B and X’s parents.
23. The meeting decided the allegation against Miss B was substantiated. The LADO agreed to notify Miss B and the relevant parents, and to refer to the DBS.

Miss B’s appeal

24. The LADO emailed Miss B on the same day as the substantiated decision was made. She told Miss B about the action that would be taken next, including the DBS referral. She provided her manager’s name and number so Miss B could discuss the allegation in more detail.
25. Miss B took the opportunity to discuss this with the LADO’s manager, both by email and in a meeting. Then, nine days after the Council’s decision, Miss B appealed.
26. The Council did not overturn its decision. It said it had given Miss B the opportunity to provide a statement to the meeting at which a decision was made on the allegation. It said Miss B had to accept that the allegation was substantiated as she had admitted it.

Further meetings

27. In March 2022 the Council held a further meeting with Miss B and many of the attendees of the allegation meetings. She provided information to the meeting about her circumstances at the time of the allegation (much of which was similar to the statement she had provided to the meeting in December 2021).
28. The Council told Miss B that it was her decision to have X in her care, and her decision to leave him on his own – whatever else had happened beforehand. It reiterated its view that the decision for X to stay with Miss B had been made solely by X’s parents. It said it would not hold any further meetings and decisions about her future employment would be made by parents and the DBS.
29. In April and May Miss B provided the Council with evidence which, in her view, supported her case. This included information about her mental health and email evidence that the Council was involved in X coming to stay with her the previous October.
30. In August the Council held a final meeting with Miss B. It acknowledged that, although the decision for X to come and stay with Miss B had been made by X’s parents, the Council had been more actively involved than would normally have been the case. It said, however, that it would not hold a further meeting to reconsider the allegation because the LADO had already been aware of all the information Miss B provided before the ‘substantiated’ decision was made.

My findings

31. The Council should give a person against whom an allegation has been made a full opportunity to answer the allegation. In cases when that person is an independent provider, the LADO – according to good practice guidance used by the Council – may be the most suitable officer to deal directly with them.
32. The Council gave Miss B the opportunity to provide a statement to the meeting at which the decision was made about the allegation against her. Attendees clearly considered this statement, and commented on it, before the decision was made.
33. Miss B then had four further opportunities to put her case forward: two meetings with senior Council staff, another meeting with professionals who had attended the allegation meetings, and an appeal.
34. There is clear evidence that Miss B provided information and documentary evidence to the Council in support of her case. There is also clear evidence that the Council considered what she had provided before deciding the allegation was substantiated. It did so again before deciding a reconsideration of the allegation was not justified.
35. Although the Council now accepts that it was more involved with Miss B looking after X in October 2021 than it first claimed, it has provided an adequate explanation why this does not justify a reconsideration of the allegation against Miss B. This had already been considered by the LADO and other professionals before a decision was made, and the Council’s consistent view throughout this process – that Miss B was responsible for saying whether she was able to look after X or not – is not unreasonable.
36. Given that the Council did not act in a way which was obviously outside relevant guidance or procedure, considered Miss B’s representations in full, and adequately explained the reasons behind its decision-making, I have found no fault in how it dealt with the allegation against Miss B.
37. This means I cannot question the Council’s decision on the allegation. This is because the Ombudsman has no power to question a decision made without fault.
38. The remaining part of Miss B’s complaint is that the Council failed to notify her of its decision and did not tell her how to appeal. The Council did, in fact, do both of these things, so it was not at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

39. The Council was not at fault for how it dealt with an allegation about Miss B’s care of X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman