Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to follow the correct process when it received untrue allegations against him. The Council failed to communicate with Mr X, its response has sought to remedy this and limit any further injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to follow the correct process when it received untrue allegations against him. He says he could not work as a taxi-driver on the school run between January 2019 and September 2019 and from September 2021 onwards. He says this has damaged his reputation, had an impact on his mental health and caused him loss of earnings.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

2. Mr X complained about events from 2019 onwards. The Council has provided information from events in 2017. I will only consider the events before 2019 for context where relevant.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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

5. As part of the investigation I have considered the following:
• The complaint and the documents provided by the complainant.
• Documents provided by the Council and its comments in response to my enquiries.
• Working Together to Safeguard Children statutory guidance.
6. 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 legislation

7. In August 2018 the government introduced statutory guidance, ‘Working Together to Safeguard Children’. The guidance provides a framework for organisations and agencies working with children and families to have clear policies for dealing with allegations against people who work with children. Policies should make a clear distinction between allegations, concerns about the quality of care or practice, or complaints. An allegation may be about a person who works with children who has:
• Behaved in a way that has or may have harmed a child.
• Possibly committed a criminal offence against or related to a child.
• Behaved towards a child or children in a way that suggests they may pose a risk of harm to children.
8. The Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) is a person responsible for managing and overseeing investigations into allegations that somebody who works with children has behaved in a way that may pose a risk to children.

9. Following an investigation, an allegation may be substantiated, false, malicious, unsubstantiated or unfounded.

The Council’s policies and procedures

10. The Councils LADO procedures are available online.
11. The employer must tell the LADO within one working day of receiving an allegation and before any further investigation taking place.
12. The employer should seek advice from the LADO, police or Children's social care about how much information they disclose to the person subject to the allegation.
13. Subject to checks on the information that can be shared, the employer should tell the person subject to the allegation about the allegation, how they will make enquiries and the possible outcome (e.g. disciplinary action, and dismissal or referral to the DBS or regulatory body).
14. The person subject to the allegation should:
• Be treated fairly and honestly and helped to understand the concerns expressed and processes involved;
• Be kept informed of the progress and outcome of any investigation and the implications for any disciplinary or related process;
• If suspended, be kept up-to-date about events in the workplace.
15. Wherever possible, a strategy meeting should take place. The meeting should consider what support should be provided to the individual and how to keep them up-to-date with the progress of the investigation.
16. The accused individual should be advised to contact their union or professional association.
17. The LADO should monitor and record the progress of each case, either fortnightly or monthly depending on its complexity. Where the target timescales cannot be met, the LADO should record the reasons. The LADO should keep records to ensure cases are dealt with quickly and without delay.
18. A final strategy meeting should be held to ensure tasks have been completed.

What happened

19. I have summarised below the key events; this is not intended to be a detailed account.
20. Mr X is a taxi driver and worked for Taxi Company A for over 16 years. From September 2018, Mr X regularly transported students on the home to school contract (“the contract”).
21. In January 2019, the Council received a LADO referral. The individual alleged Mr X acted inappropriately while transporting students to and from school.
22. Mr X’s manager at Taxi Company A told Mr X the LADO was investigating the allegation. Taxi Company A suspended Mr X from the contract. Mr X could continue working as a self-employed taxi-driver.
23. In February 2019, the Council held a LADO Strategy Meeting to discuss the referral. Representatives from the School, Police, Taxi Company A, the Council’s licensing, commissioning and adult services departments attended. Mr X was not invited to the meeting and would not receive a copy of the minutes. He could ask for a redacted copy.
24. The police said it would need to decide if the allegations could be “crimed” and agreed to feedback to the chairperson.
25. The meeting recommended Mr X remained suspended from the contract and the police to feedback about the criminal investigation to the next LADO meeting.
26. The Council does not have a record about the investigation after this meeting.
27. The Council does not have a record of communication with Mr X during this LADO investigation.
28. Mr X said the only communication he had was with his manager at Taxi Company A who told him about the LADO investigation and that he was suspended from the contract.
29. In conversation with me, Mr X said he did not receive any communication from the Council. Neither did he contact the Council. He said he was stressed and anxious about the allegation. He would drive his taxi on a self-employed basis for a couple of hours but could not focus and would go home.
30. In September 2019, Mr X started doing contract work for Taxi Company B.
31. The Council became aware of Mr X doing contract work in September 2021 and held an informal meeting. The LADO arranged a formal meeting in October 2021. The minutes state there was some “unfinished business” from previous LADO meetings and there was a breakdown in communication following the meeting in 2019. It said Mr X was under the impression he could not drive for Taxi Company A and had a new job doing contract work for Taxi Company B.
32. Taxi Company B did not know about the LADO investigation from 2019. Once it was aware of the situation, Taxi Company B did not give Mr X any work.
33. The result of the 2021 LADO meeting was unsubstantiated. The attendees had concerns about Mr X but could not prove or disprove the allegations. The attendees agreed Mr X could continue to drive taxis but not provide contract work. The meeting recommendation was for the LADO to write to Mr X and tell him the decision and to tell the taxi companies Mr X worked for.
34. Mr X was not invited to the meeting and would not automatically receive a copy of the minutes. He could ask for a redacted copy.
35. In October 2021, the LADO wrote to Mr X telling him the result of the meeting as set out above. The letter apologised for not directly sharing the information with Mr X during the previous LADO investigation although it recognised Mr X’s employer did.
36. Mr X wrote to the Council in January 2022 and asked for advice on how he could challenge the decision. Council Officers considered Mr X’s request and offered him training. Mr X completed the training and returned to contract work, with conditions. The Council confirmed this in writing to Mr X in April 2022.
37. Mr X complained to the Council in May 2022. The Council issued its stage one response in May 2022 and its stage two response in August 2022. The Council partially upheld Mr X’s complaint and admitted its communication during the LADO investigation was poor. It did not say the LADO decision was wrong, the recommendation would still stand. The Council apologised and offered Mr X £500 in compensation to recognise the impact the lack of communication had on Mr X. It said any financial impact on Mr X because he was not able to do contract work was not due to the poor communication, this would have been the same had the LADO communicated the decision effectively.
38. The Ombudsman received Mr X’s complaint in November 2022.

Analysis

39. The LADO procedure states the employer must tell the accused person about the allegation. The LADO is an advisory role. The employer conducts their own enquiries, follows their own procedures and decides about the individual’s employment. Following receipt of the allegation in 2019, the manager at Taxi Company A told Mr X about the allegation and investigation and suspended him from the contract. The first communication with the accused is from the employer. The LADO is not involved at this stage, the Council is not at fault.
40. The LADO procedure states the person subject to the allegation should be treated fairly and honestly and helped to understand the concerns expressed and processes involved. They should be kept informed of the progress and result of the investigation. Mr X said this did not happen. The LADO should have ensured Mr X understood the allegation, processes and progress of the investigation. They did not. The Council is at fault.
41. The LADO procedure says the meeting should consider how to support the individual and decide how to keep them updated throughout the investigation. There was no communication with Mr X or support offered. The LADO should have ensured this happened. They did not. The Council is at fault.
42. The Council’s procedure states the LADO should check and record the progress of cases at least monthly. This could be through review strategy meetings or liaison with the police or employer, as suitable. I have not seen any evidence the LADO monitored the progress of the case in 2019, after the first meeting. The Council is at fault.
43. There was no direct correspondence between the Council and Mr X during the 2019 LADO investigation. The minutes of the first meeting state Mr X was not invited to the meeting but may ask for a redacted copy of the minutes. Considering Mr X may ask for the redacted minutes, there ought to have been communication with him, to make the offer. There was not, this is fault.
44. The minutes of LADO meeting in 2019 show several actions. The LADO should have arranged a further meeting after the Police investigation. I have not seen any evidence these actions were completed. This is fault.
45. The procedure states the LADO should arrange a final strategy meeting to ensure all tasks have been completed. This did not happen, this is fault.
46. The Council’s complaint response said there should have been communication directly with Mr X during the 2019 investigation. There was none. This is fault.

Injustice

47. Failings of the Council to complete the 2019 investigation and communicate with Mr X left him in limbo. He said this caused him stress and anxiety. This is understandable as the allegations made against him were serious. Mr X did not get closure from the process.
48. As there was no written result of the LADO investigation, this allowed Mr X to continue working. He had nothing in writing from the Council, either the LADO, commissioning or licensing to tell him he was suspended from contract work. The only communication he had was from the manager of Taxi Company A. No other taxi companies were aware of his suspension. The Council’s failings allowed Mr X to do contract work for Taxi Company B at the start of the academic year in September 2019, work he was not allowed to do. As Mr X continued to do the contract work, this limits his financial injustice.
49. The Council allowed Mr X to prove he was suitable to do the contract work by completing training and accepting conditions on his licence. Mr X returned to the contract work in April 2022. This limits any injustice Mr X experienced. He is now in the same work position he was before any fault took place.
50. In its stage two response the Council acknowledged its communication with Mr X regarding the LADO process was poor. The Council apologised and offered him £500 in compensation to recognise the impact the lack of communication caused.
51. The Council's failure to complete the investigation and communicate a decision to Mr X caused him stress, anxiety and left him in limbo. However, he was still able to work on a self-employed basis and the Council's failure to complete the investigation process meant he could do the contract work for another taxi firm. This reduced the financial impact on Mr X and limited his injustice. The Council offered Mr X £500; this is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for distress payments. The Council also offered training, Mr X is now officially able to do contract work. I consider this is a suitable remedy and I do not intend to make further recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

52. I have now completed my investigation. The Council failed to communicate with Mr X, but its response limited any injustice to him. The Council has apologised to Mr X and offered compensation which is a suitable remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman