Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council substantiating child safeguarding concerns in a matter concerning Mr X. Investigation by us would be unlikely to lead to a finding of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X said a safeguarding investigation concerning a school referral about him in the course of his employment was a kangaroo court.

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))

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. The Council received a referral about Mr X from his employer. It fell to the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) to consider as it was about someone working with children and young people.
6. The LADO gathered information and decided Mr X had taken the actions set out in the referral. Mr X has not disputed the actions themselves, but is unhappy the LADO did not take information from him about the context and reasons for them, and did not involve him in the investigation process.
7. Mr X resigned from his position before the LADO and a multi-agency panel finished their work. That, however, is a matter between him and his former employer that we have no power to investigate.
8. The multi-agency panel agreed with the LADO the Council should make a disclosure to the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS). What the DBS chooses to do with the information is not something we can investigate.
9. We recognise events leading to Mr X’s complaint have caused or contributed to his distress and anxiety, and affected his health and wellbeing. But based on the information we have seen, including Mr X’s own account of his actions, we could not say there would have been a significantly different result if the Council had acted differently, as Mr X thinks it should. We could not say the result was flawed by any fault Mr X sees in the Council’s approach, so the complaint does not warrant investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision to warrant our further involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman