Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council wrongly advised her after a member of staff at her nursery raised a safeguarding alert about a child. Further investigation will not achieve anything meaningful and we cannot achieve the outcome she wants.

The complaint

1. Mrs X, who owns a nursery, complained about the actions of the Council when one of her staff raised a safeguarding alert about one of the children.
2. Mrs X says that because of the Council’s fault, her business has experienced reputational damage.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

4. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as Ofsted. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34A, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. One of Mrs X’s nursery staff (Z) raised a safeguarding alert about one of the children (Child A). Mrs X called the Council to report the alert and it told her she did not have to report it to the police. The following day, the Council’s Family Services contacted Mrs X and asked for the name of the staff member who had raised the alert. Family Services passed these details onto Child A’s parents.
8. Mrs X says Child A’s parents wanted to contact Z as they were annoyed about the alert. Mrs X said to manage the situation, she held a meeting with Z and the parents present.
9. All safeguarding incidents must be reported to Ofsted. Mrs X did this and Ofsted carried out a visit. The report, which was published on Ofsted’s website, stated the nursery was not following some of the safeguarding requirements because it had held a meeting with Z and Child A’s parents which could have jeopardised any investigations. It stated the nursery was now aware of the correct processes to take and no further action was needed.
10. Mrs X complained to the Council. The Council agreed it had misadvised her when it told her not to call the police and it should not have given Z’s details to Child A’s parents. It did not uphold Mrs X’s complaint that it was to blame for the meeting because she would not have held it if the Council had not passed on Z’s details to the parents. It said it was not responsible because she had done this without first seeking the Council’s advice or the advice of the police. Mrs X came to us.
11. Mrs X wants Ofsted to be notified of the role the Council played after the safeguarding alert was raised. However, Ofsted carried out a site visit and Mrs X could have, and indeed may have, discussed these matters at that time. If she did not, it is open to her to send Ofsted the Council’s response which details where it acted with fault. Any involvement by the Ombudsman would achieve nothing further. We cannot investigate or influence the actions of Ofsted inspections. Therefore, we could not recommend it change one of its reports or withdraw it from its website.
12. In addition, Mrs X says she has experienced reputational damage. Mrs X can seek a remedy for this through the courts and it is reasonable to expect her to do so. We cannot determine damage claims.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because we cannot achieve the outcome she wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman