Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a safeguarding concern. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault that has caused an injustice to the complainant. Investigation would also not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about how the Council dealt with a safeguarding concern raised about him. Mr X says the Council’s LADO should not have been involved because he did not work with children. Mr X says the allegations made were false, that the Council inappropriately shared information about his children and he wants the Council to share the source of the safeguarding concern with him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council received a safeguarding concern about Mr X and received information from Mr X’s employer, stating that he sometimes worked with children. The Council’s LADO oversaw the employer’s investigation into Mr X, and he was subsequently dismissed.
7. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council’s LADO should not have become involved on the basis that Mr X did not work with children. The information provided to the LADO was that Mr X did occasionally work with children and therefore there is no fault with the Council’s LADO becoming involved. If Mr X believes inaccurate information about his role was provided to the Council, this is a matter he should raise with the employer.
8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that inaccurate information was held or shared by the Council or that the Council had refused to respond to his Subject Access Request and disclose the source of the safeguarding concern. This is because it is reasonable for Mr X to raise these matters with the Information Commissioner, who is best placed to deal with complaints about data protection matters.
9. The Council accepted that it did not properly consider if the LADO process should have been carried out by Local Authority where Mr X lives. However, I do not consider that this caused Mr X an injustice. This is because, on the balance of probabilities, the LADO process would have commenced whichever Local Authority dealt with the matter. The Council shared its findings into this point with the service and therefore further investigation would also not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault that has caused him an injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman