Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s safeguarding actions. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mx X said the Council’s designated officer (LADO) for safeguarding children failed to evaluate their case leading to them being considered a risk to children.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. A LADO’s role is not to weigh up a case, like a court or tribunal, or to establish to either a civil or criminal standard of proof that events happened. Instead, the role is to protect children from risk. And that a person suspected of posing a risk to children may have protected characteristics or a need for reasonable adjustments does not affect the duty to protect children.
5. Mx X worked with children. Mx X sent us a detailed account of the matters considered by the LADO. The nature of the matters reported was sufficient for any decision by the LADO that Mx X might pose a risk to children to be a matter of professional judgment, not fault.

Back to top

Final decision

6. We will not investigate Mx X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman