Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a safeguarding matter. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault, and we cannot achieve the outcome the complaining is seeking. The Information Commissioner is better placed to consider other matters.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about how the Council’s Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) dealt with a safeguarding referral received about him when he worked with children. Mr X says the LADO accepted inaccurate information from his employer and failed to follow procedures. Mr X says he was dismissed due to advice from the LADO and this has impacted his life. Mr X wants the Council to remove inaccurate information from his records and to change the allegation outcome.

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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(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 who worked with children. Once a police investigation had concluded, 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 about how the Council dealt with the referral. Its role was not to investigate the allegations but to provide advice and guidance on the next steps. Records show the LADO carried out its role in accordance with the Council’s policy. Furthermore, the Ombudsman cannot overturn a LADO’s decision, or substitute an alternative view. Our involvement could therefore not achieve the outcome which Mr X seeks.
8. Mr X feels the Council is holding inaccurate information about him and wants it amended. However, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is better placed to consider complaints about data protection and therefore it is reasonable for him to raise a complaint with the ICO about this matter.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault, we cannot achieve the outcome he seeks and because the ICO are better placed to consider complaints about data protection.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman