Summary: Mr B complains the Council treated him differently during a safeguarding enquiry. He considers the Council racially profiled him. I have not found evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains that the Council singled him out and racially profiled him when carrying out a safeguarding enquiry into Mr B and other staff involved in an incident at a school.
2. The Council’s referral to Mr B’s home Council’s children’s services department stated that “it was concluded that it was an assault, not restraint” in relation to an incident at the school where Mr B works. However, Mr B complains the Council did not refer to conclusion of assault in its referrals regarding the other members of staff.
3. As a result, Mr B says he was subjected to a S47 enquiry over a period of months when this was ultimately found to be unsubstantiated.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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

6. I have discussed the complaint with Mr B and considered the information he provided. I have made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents it provided. Mr B 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

Safeguarding

7. Under section 47 of the Children Act 1989, where a council has reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm, it has a duty to make such enquiries as it considers necessary to decide whether to take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. Such enquiries should be initiated where there are concerns about abuse or neglect.
8. Councils must consider potential “transferable risk”. This is whether a person working with children has behaved towards a child or children in a way that indicates they may pose a risk of harm to children.

Equality Act 2010

9. The Equality Act 2010 provides a legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity for all. It offers protection, in employment, education, the provision of goods and services, housing, transport and the carrying out of public functions.
10. The Equality Act makes it unlawful for organisations carrying out public functions to discriminate on any of the nine protected characteristics listed in the Equality Act 2010.
11. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them.
12. We cannot find that an organisation has breached the Equality Act. However, we can find an organisation at fault for failing to take account of its duties under the Equality Act.

What happened

13. Mr B works in a school. In 2023 a young person alleged that Mr B and three other members of staff were involved in an incident, in which the young person was injured.
14. The young person visited his healthcare provider and a doctor recorded the injury appeared more like assault than restraining.
15. The Police received an allegation from the young person’s parent of assault by the members of staff. The Police started a criminal investigation.
16. The school sent a consultation form regarding the staff involved in the incident to the Council’s Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) who deals with allegations against staff who work with children. This stated the staff had restrained the young person, who had then alleged he was assaulted by staff and had been injured.
17. The school did not complete a response to the question “Does the person of concern currently care for any children? If yes, please provide details.” This question was to enable the Council to consider the “transferable risk” to children of the accused staff.
18. The Council held a strategy meeting and decided that the threshold had been met to make safeguarding enquiries under section 47 regarding the young person.
19. The strategy meeting agreed the Council would seek details of any child cared for by the staff members. The Council would then make appropriate safeguarding referrals. The Council asked the school for details of any child linked to the members of staff, as the school had not provided the information on the form.
20. The Council received information regarding Mr B and his children. As he lived in a different local authority’s area the Council sent a safeguarding referral to the other Council’s children’s services department. It stated that the young person suffered a number of injuries which “led to the conclusion that he had suffered an assault rather than being restrained.”
21. The Council receiving the referral commenced a safeguarding enquiry regarding Mr B’s children under section 47.
22. The Council also received information about another member of staff and his child. The Council made an internal referral. This contained a very similar statement as set out in paragraph 15, as it said the injuries led to the conclusion that the young person was “physically assaulted rather than being restrained.”
23. Mr B complained to the Council that he had been subject to a section 47 investigation by his home Council, but the other members of staff had not. He said one of the staff members lived in his area, but his Council had not approached him regarding a safeguarding investigation.
24. The Council replied that it was the school’s safeguarding officer’s responsibility to provide the correct information regarding the members of staff. The Police checked relevant systems to see if staff were linked to any children and would send relevant child concern notifications to the relevant Local Authorities. The Council was satisfied that its childrens’ services department had a responsibility to share information and had followed the process appropriately.
25. After some months the Police decided that no further action should be taken. The Council closed its safeguarding enquiry into the young person. The Council recorded the outcome as unsubstantiated.
26. Mr B complained further to the Council that amongst other things, the Council had:
• Shared false information because it stated the young person suffered a number of injuries which has led to the conclusion the young person suffered an assault rather than being restrained. This implied his children were suffering or likely to suffer harm. In Mr B’s view the Council portrayed him as a perpetrator when it was an allegation the young person made.
• Racially profiled him. He felt singled out because of the four staff he was the only one subject to a s47 investigation. Two other accused staff had children and one also lived in the same local authority area as he did, but was not subject to the any investigation.
27. The Council replied at the final stage of its procedure. It did not uphold Mr B’s complaint.
• It explained the role of the LADO in dealing with allegations and the Council’s requirement to consider transferable risk where the person working with children has “behaved in a way that has harmed a child, or may have harmed a child; or possibly committed a criminal offence against or related to a child; or behaved towards a child or children in a way that indicates they may pose risk of harm to children.”
• It stated the school had not provided information about the children of the four members of staff. The Council and the Police had obtained the information. Some of the staff did not live in the Council’s area and so it was obliged to share information about the allegation with other local authorities.
• The Council did not agree Mr B was singled out. It said it had sought information for all four members of staff. Due to the lack of information from the school the Council had sought information from other records such as those it held and Police records.
• The Council noted Mr B asked why it had not identified all his colleagues’ children. It replied that it relied on data collected over the years and this did not guarantee all children would be recorded.
• It had not seen any mention of Mr B’s race in any of the notes or documents it received. It did not agree the Council racially profiled him in any way.
• The Council noted Mr B complained the referral it sent included an assumption of assault rather than an allegation. Mr B had complained to his local authority about its investigation. It replied it acted on the information it received from the Council.
• The Council said the Police report referred to assault as well as healthcare records. The young person reported the incident as assault. But the school referred to staff restraining the young person. There was therefore a difference between the school and the young person’s version. The Council had a duty to share both versions with Mr B’s Council, which would decide for itself.
• Ultimately, the Police concluded their investigation as no further action. But it was essential to listen to the young person’s voice during the investigation.

Analysis

28. Mr B complained the school provided information regarding all staff. But the evidence I have seen does not show this. It appears the Council obtained information regarding Mr B’s children from other sources. It also found one other member of staff had children. There is no fault here.
29. The Council referred information about Mr B and his children to his home authority. It had a duty to do this because of the transferable risk. There is no fault here.
30. Mr B complained the way the Council phrased the referral included an assumption of assault. However, I do not consider there is fault here. The Council provided information about the assault that the young person reported, healthcare information and Police information. These referred to assault. There is no apparent fault here.
31. Mr B complained the Council’s referral was different to its referral for another staff member. However, I consider the internal referral was almost exactly the same as the referral the Council sent to Mr B’s home authority. Any differences were not significant. There is no apparent fault here.
32. Mr B complained the Council singled him out because its referral to his home Council led to it pursuing a section 47 enquiry. However, Sunderland City Council did not pursue a section 47 enquiry regarding his colleague who lived in the Council’s area. I have seen the Council’s enquiry records and I have not seen fault in how it was considered. I cannot comment on Mr X’s home authority’s investigation as I am not considering a complaint about this.
33. Mr B complained another staff member who lived in the same area as he did, and who had a child was not treated in the same way as he was. The Council confirmed it did not identify this person had a child. Therefore, it did not make a referral regarding transferable risk. While that person notified the Council he had a child at a later stage, the circumstances were different and did not require referral. I have not found evidence of fault here.
34. Mr B said the Council racially profiled him because it treated him differently. However, I have not seen evidence the Council failed to take account of its duties under the Equality Act when carrying out its safeguarding procedures.

Back to top

Final decision

35. I have not found fault by the Council. I have completed my investigation and closed the complaint.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman