Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with matters concerning a safeguarding matter. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Dr X complains about how the Council’s Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) dealt with matters relating to a safeguarding concern raised against him. Dr X says the LADO did not properly advise others of the exact allegations made. Dr X says the decision to substantiate one of the allegations should be reversed.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. 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)

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’s LADO received a safeguarding referral about Dr X who works with children. A multi-agency meeting was held to consider the matter but after Dr X complained the meeting was reconvened. The outcome was that one of the allegations against Dr X was substantiated. Dr X subsequently provided additional information including witness statements and asked the Council to either reconvene the meeting again or to reverse the decision to substantiate one of the allegations.
7. I will not investigate Dr X’s complaint about how the Council’s LADO did not properly advise others of the exact allegations made during the reconvened meeting. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. The minutes show that attendees discussed the particular allegation in detail and that differing version of events including those from Dr X were discussed and considered before the decision was made to substantiate the allegations.
8. There is also insufficient evidence of fault with how the Council dealt with additional information that was provided after the reconvene meeting. The LADO considered the information alongside the reconvened meeting minutes and made further enquiries before reaching the conclusion that there were no grounds to further reconvene the meeting or change the substantiated finding. In the absence of fault the Ombudsman is unable to question the merits of this decision.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Dr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman