Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly consider a safeguarding referral she made. We did not find fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly consider a safeguarding referral she made. She believes the Council missed important evidence she provided, and that any decision it reached was made without all relevant information.
2. Mrs X said the subject of her safeguarding referral is now trustee of an organisation working with vulnerable children, and the Council failed to tell the organisation about the risk they present.
3. The Council accepted it was at fault for not involving the Local Authority Designated Officer when it first considered the allegation in 2023. It agreed to run the process again and hold a second Person in a Position of Trust meeting.
4. However, Mrs X continued to be concerned the Council did not include all relevant information in the process, and said it had not shown it did.
5. Mrs X said the process has been retraumatising for her, and she suffered emotional distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

6. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, 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

What I have and have not investigated

8. I investigated the second Person in a Position of Trust (PiPoT) meeting the Council held after considering Mrs X’s complaint. I did not investigate the first meeting held in 2023.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. As part of the investigation, I considered the complaint and the information Mrs X provided.
10. I also considered the Council’s responses along with relevant law and guidance.
11. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

People in positions of trust

12. A person in a position of trust is someone who works or volunteers with adults with care and support needs, or with children.
13. People can be considered to be in a position of trust where they are likely to have contact with adults with care and support needs, or children, as part of their paid or voluntary work, and where they are able to exercise authority, power, or control over them.
14. The Care Act 2014 requires councils to have policies for considering allegations against people in positions of trust.

What happened

15. I have summarised below some key events leading to Mrs X’s complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
16. In 2023, Mrs X told the Council about historic abuse.
17. The alleged perpetrator is a person who holds two voluntary position of trust roles. Mrs X wanted the Council to do a risk assessment and tell the organisations about the historic abuse.
18. The Council held a PiPoT meeting with the Police, but said the referral did not meet the threshold for further action.
19. Mrs X got a copy of the referral form the Council used for the PiPoT meeting. She complained the Council missed information from her account and did not accurately share information for the meeting. Mrs X also commissioned an advocacy report which she sent to the Council. The report argued the referral form contained inadequate information or professional comment for a defensible decision. It highlighted the Council did not include a Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO), and should have done because of the alleged perpetrator’s roles as trustee and school governor. The report suggested the referral did meet the threshold for further action.
20. The Council accepted fault because it did not include a LADO in the PiPoT meeting. It held the meeting again, with two LADOs and a senior police officer. It told Mrs X it gave attendees all the information she sent. It said it applied the process rigorously and will take any suitable further steps.
21. The Council did not share the result of the second PiPoT meeting with Mrs X, as it is confidential.

My investigation

22. Mrs X told me she met with a Council officer in 2023 to discuss the historic abuse and raise concerns about the alleged perpetrator. However, she did not feel the officer’s referral form included all the information she gave, as it only referred to one incident.
23. The Council told Mrs X it included all the information. However, when she asked for evidence, it said it did not have the officer’s referral email any longer. Mrs X therefore does not consider the Council can reliably say it included all information if it cannot verify this.
24. Mrs X saw a copy of a form used for the first PiPoT meeting. She was concerned it did not contain enough information and only included one report on the abuse. It also got key dates wrong.
25. Mrs X told me she felt ignored and silenced, and the Council did not deal with her appropriately in the complaint process.
26. The Council told me it reviewed all documents Mrs X provided in 2023 to ensure attendees of the second PiPoT meeting had all the information. It said there were 32 documents including the PiPoT referral, and it gave me a list of them. It shared all documents with participants before the second PiPoT meeting.

Analysis

27. Mrs X had genuine concerns about the accuracy and completeness of the information the Council included and shared for the first PiPoT process, and the impact this may have had on the decision-making process and the outcome of the referral. I did not investigate that process. However, on the evidence seen, attendees of the second meeting were aware of the full history and police investigation when discussing the referral. They also had access to the relevant background information and professional reports.
28. I reviewed the notes from the second PiPoT meeting, along with the information attendees considered, and the outcome.
29. Information shared before the second PiPoT meeting included several reports from professionals and relevant correspondence provided by Mrs X.
30. I am satisfied the Council gave attendees all the information it held about the allegations before the second PiPoT meeting.
31. During the second PiPoT meeting, attendees discussed Mrs X’s recent report and concerns, and the historic incidents these concerns arise from. The Council asked a senior Police Officer to attend the meeting. The officer shared information about the Police investigation into these allegations. They confirmed the relevant details will show on an enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service check.
32. Attendees also discussed the report from Mrs X’s advocate, whether the alleged perpetrator has regular contact with children or vulnerable adults, and any transferrable risk posed.
33. Attendees unanimously agreed on whether the allegations met the threshold for further action. However, I cannot include these details in my decision, or share the information with Mrs X, because it is confidential.
34. I appreciate the safeguarding concerns Mrs X has, and the ongoing distress she suffers. This was made worse by having to go through the details again with the Council, and for this complaint. But it is ultimately the role of the Council and the Police to decide what further action to take, not the Ombudsman. While I cannot tell Mrs X what that action will be, I can confirm I have not seen evidence of fault in the process for the second PiPoT meeting.

Back to top

Final decision

35. I completed my investigation. I did not find fault in the Council’s actions.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman