Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a referral to the Local Authority Designated Officer. This is because there is insufficient evidence that the referral has caused the complainant significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, complains that the Council was at fault in making a referral to the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) of another authority on the basis of a false allegation.

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:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X’s relative is a looked-after child. In May 2024 the Council made a LADO referral to the council she is employed by for. Mrs X says the referral was predicated on the false allegation that she had harboured the young person who had run away from her foster care. She says she did not do so. She further complains that the LADO referral was unreasonably delayed.
6. Mrs X contends that this LADO referral, and earlier ones made about her and another family member, amount to retaliation for the raising of legitimate concerns about the Council’s care of the young person. She says that, given the seriousness of a LADO referral for someone in her profession, the referral must be warranted and appropriately made. She complains that this was not the case and argues that the officer’s actions amount to a breach of professional standards. She does not believe the officer, or those who have approved her actions, should remain in post.
7. There are insufficient grounds for the Ombudsman to investigate Mrs X’s complaint. We investigate complaints where there is a demonstrable causal link between fault on a council’s part and significant injustice to the complainant. There is no reason to doubt Mrs X assertion that a LADO referral is a significant matter for someone in her profession. However, substantive injustice caused by a LADO referral would flow largely from the finding.
8. Without evidence that a referral was material to a negative finding, we would not consider whether the referral itself was flawed and contributed materially to the outcome. There is therefore insufficient evidence of injustice caused to Mrs X by the Council’s actions to warrant investigation by the Ombudsman.
9. Whether the Council’s officers have breached appropriate professional standards is not a matter for the Ombudsman. We look at organisational fault, not individual professional competence. Decisions about individual’s fitness to practise or work are for the organisations concerned, and for regulators such as Social Work England. Neither do we have the power to recommend that individuals are removed from their jobs..

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of significant injustice caused to her by the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman