Summary: Miss X complained about the standard of the Council’s safeguarding investigation under the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) process following a safeguarding allegation made against her. There was no fault in how the Council investigated and substantiated the allegations. However, there was unnecessary delays during the investigation. Further, the LADO process did not apply policy or set clear timescales for actions to be completed after the investigation concluded. The Council agreed to apologise to Miss X for the frustration and uncertainty caused to her and review its policy.

The complaint

1. Miss X, a foster carer, complained about the standard of the Council’s safeguarding investigation under the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) process following an allegation from a former foster child. She said the LADO failed to use and check available evidence and allowed inaccurate information to be used. She said allegations were made against her that she did not have the opportunity to respond to. She said this has caused avoidable distress and uncertainty.
2. Miss X also complained the Council had not responded to a subject access request (SAR).

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether there is disagreement about that decision.
5. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So, where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
6. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
7. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

8. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
9. I have investigated the matter from November 2022 to September 2024. I have exercised my discretion to investigate from the initial safeguarding referral to the LADO to the Councils final complaint response. The time taken for Miss X to complain to the Ombudsman was reasonable based on the length of the LADO and subsequent complaints process.
10. I have not investigated any matters after September 2024, these would be subject of a new complaint to the Council.
11. I have not investigated Miss X’s complaint about her Subject Access Request, the Information Commissioners Office is better placed to deal with this matter.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

12. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
13. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Allegations against people working with children

14. Councils have a duty to investigate if there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child in its area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. The council must decide whether it should take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. (Children Act 1989, section 47).
15. Under section 47 of the Children Act 1989, where a council has reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm, it has a duty to make such enquiries as it considers necessary to decide whether to take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. Such enquiries should be initiated where there are concerns about abuse or neglect

Allegations against foster carers

16. The National Fostering Minimum Standards says investigations into allegations against carers should be carried out quickly and should provide protection to the child but also support to the person subject to the investigation. Foster carers should be told in writing about any allegations against them and given information about the timescale for completing the investigation. They should be provided with a copy of the allegations, actions taken and any decisions as soon as an investigation is concluded (National Fostering Minimum Standards, Standard 22)

Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO)

17. The Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) is a person responsible for managing and overseeing investigations into allegations that somebody who works with children has behaved in a way that may pose a risk to children.

The Council’s policy and procedure: ‘Managing Allegations Against Adults who work with Children and Young People’

18. The LADO’s responsibilities include:
• provision of advice and guidance to employers, voluntary organisations and liaison with the police and other agencies;
• monitoring and recording of cases either fortnightly or monthly depending on the complexity to ensure they are dealt without undue delay;
• ensure minutes of meetings contain clear action points, name a responsible individual and have clear time-scales for each;
• oversee the majority of case conclusion within one to three months. With all but exceptional cases completed within 12 months; and
• ensure any allegation of abuse is dealt with fairly and consistently, in a way that provides effective protection for the child/young person and supports the person who is the subject of the allegation.
19. Following an allegation, a strategy meeting will take place to decide how to manage the investigation. The procedure states it is the responsibility of the employer to keep the person of any allegation, informed and provided with appropriate support.
20. The procedures outline the different outcomes of the case which are determined at a final strategy meeting. These include:
• Substantiated – sufficient evidence to prove the allegation.
• Malicious – sufficient evidence to disprove the allegation and there has been a deliberate act to deceive.
• False – sufficient evidence to disprove the allegation.
• Unsubstantiated – insufficient evidence to prove or disprove the allegation. The term does not imply guilt or innocence.
21. Within two weeks of the concluding strategy meeting, the LADO will:
• inform all parties, in writing, including foster carers, of the outcome and any action to be taken; and
• consider holding a debriefing meeting for all involved as to the impact of the allegations and the investigation, whatever the outcome, and any necessary assistance requirements.
22. There is no appeal to the outcome of the Safeguarding LADO process. The adjudication is a professional decision based on the balance of probability.
23. A report should be presented to the next available fostering panel with foster carers and any representatives having at least four weeks to comment on the report.

What happened

24. Miss X was a foster carer employed by a regional fostering agency (RFA). In 2022 Miss X was fostering three children all under the age of ten.
25. In late 2022, the RFA contacted the Council after one of the foster children living with Miss X, made allegations to a teacher in their school that she had harmed them, and it was referred to the LADO. The children were removed from Miss X’s care due to the nature of the allegation.
26. The LADO held a Joint Evaluation Meeting (JEM) with other professionals including Miss X’s supervising social worker from the fostering agency, the police and each child’s social worker. The JEM decided that Miss X should complete an Independent Quality of Care (QoC) assessment and a section 47 decision would be deferred until this was completed, she should also be provided with opportunity to respond to the matters raised. The LADO would reconvene the JEM as soon as possible following completion of this assessment.
27. In January 2023 a further JEM was held. The meeting decided, after a request from the police to pause the QoC assessment to allow for the police investigation to proceed.
28. Records show the LADO requested updates on the police investigation in March and April 2023.
29. The JEM reconvened in May 2023 after conclusion of the police investigation. The meeting summarised and decided:
• the police investigation had advised no criminal charges but there was evidence of poor fostering practice;
• the independent QoC assessment was not suitable and a new, robust internal assessment needed to be undertaken as soon as possible. A section 47 decision would remain deferred;
• delays caused by the police investigation and unsatisfactory QoC assessment were having a significant impact on Miss X due to the uncertainty; and
• the meeting would be reconvened in approximately four weeks’ time.
30. After completion of the assessment in late September 2023, a final JEM was held in October 2023. Those present discussed the allegations again including accounts from professionals, the children and Miss X’s responses to the allegations. It was decided that section 47 threshold was not met as the children were no longer at risk and now in the care of their respective local authorities and thriving. However, the allegations, on balance, were substantiated due to ‘sufficient evidence’ of poor practice involving the children previously in Miss X’s care and professional concerns around Miss X as a foster carer.
31. Records show an outline plan with actions was produced by the LADO after the meeting. The actions were for the RFA to provide Miss X with ongoing support as her employer and as soon as possible:
• share the substantiated outcome with Miss X;
• make a referral to the Disclosure Barring Service (DBS);
• convene a panel to decide if Miss X’s approval to foster should be discontinued and provide her with a clear explanation of the implications related to her approval being discontinued and referral to the DBS; and
• identify any other organisations involving children where Miss X is involved and inform the LADO.
32. The plan requested that actions should be undertaken within the agreed timescales and once completed, the LADO should be informed.
33. Miss X said she made a Subject Access Request (SAR) to the Council for all LADO meeting minutes regarding her case.
34. Records show a letter was sent to Miss X by the RFA in February 2024 advising her of the substantiated outcome and an arranged fostering panel.
35. Miss X complained to the Council in April 2024. She complained about the outcome of the LADO investigation and said the Council had failed to make an evidence-based decision. Miss X said the children were in crisis when allegations were made and her social worker had been fully aware of this, assumptions had been made about the police investigation, and she was not given the opportunity to respond to the allegations.
36. The Council did not uphold Miss X’s complaint. It said:
• following the allegations against her the threshold was met to initiate a strategy meetings. The final decision was made on the balance of probabilities;
• after the police investigation, further delays were caused by additional work on the QoC assessment. These were deemed necessary by the LADO to ensure all outcome decisions were based on relevant information;
• her social worker and independent fostering agency had liaised with Miss X throughout and discussions were recorded, these were taken account of across all LADO meetings;
• police representation in LADO meetings was in line with procedure;
• content and disagreements about information presented at the JEM conclusion meeting should be taken to the RFA as the author of the report. If information or changes needed to be made, the LADO should be made aware. Likewise, any disagreement about the content of the letter sent by the RFA in February, should be communicated with them;
• the LADO’s involvement ceased after the conclusion meeting, however there were actions and an expectation that the RFA would discuss the outcome with Miss X and offer any support required; and
• no SAR had been received. Information on how to make a SAR was provided.
37. Miss X remained unhappy with the Councils actions and responses, she asked the Ombudsman to investigate the matter.

Analysis

Substantiated decision

38. Following the allegations against Miss X and the subsequent referral from the RFA, the Council appropriately held strategy meetings to discuss how to proceed. It considered its duties under section 47 and all evidence available to it at the time, including Miss X’s responses before making a decision. There was no fault in that decision, and the rationale is recorded in the strategy meeting minutes.

The LADO Process

39. The pausing of the LADO process caused by the police investigation was reasonable to ensure a fair police investigation for Miss X. The LADO asked for timely updates from the police. The LADO process continued shortly after the police investigation had concluded.
40. From the evidence available, the LADO’s decision to ask for further work to be undertaken on the QoC assessment was made to ensure that accurate and adequate information was used to support the process and any subsequent decisions. On making this decision the JEM was to reconvene approximately four weeks later and the RFA was to write to Miss X to explain the reasons for the delay.
41. The LADO recognised that delays in the assessment were causing Miss X uncertainty, however the QoC report was not completed until late September and the JEM did not reconvene until early October, four months or 19 weeks after the meeting, significantly longer than the proposed four weeks. There is no evidence the LADO monitored or recorded the case fortnightly or monthly, in line with its policy and procedures during this period which was fault.
42. The LADO carried out strategy (JEM) meetings with other professionals present, ensured Miss X’s account was included via the interviews undertaken with her and considered accounts from the children. The LADO decided to substantiate the allegations on the balance of probabilities which they are entitled to do.
43. Following the conclusion of the investigation the LADO actioned the RFA, as Miss X’s employer, to share the substantiated outcome and provide necessary support. The actions were to be completed as soon as possible with the LADO informed when actions had been completed. Miss X was not informed of the decision until February 2024, four months after the LADO process concluded. This is not in line with its own policy and procedure of informing all parties, including foster carers, of outcomes and actions within two weeks of conclusion. All of this is fault.
44. The Council’s application of its policy on roles and responsibilities both during and after the investigation were not clear. The responsibility for updating Miss X and providing her with updates, reports and outcomes lay mostly with the RFA. The actions set after the investigation did not have clear time frames for completion, the LADO did not ensure all parties were informed of outcomes within two weeks as per policy and while actions were eventually carried out these were allowed to drift. The lack of clarity in the actions and application of the policy towards Miss X is fault. It caused Miss X uncertainty and contributed to her feeling disengaged during the investigation.

Back to top

Recommended action

45. Within one month of the final decision the Council has agreed to apologise in writing to Miss X to acknowledge the injustice caused by the faults identified. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended.
46. Within three months of the final decision the Council has agreed to review its ‘Managing Allegations Against Adults who work with Children and Young People’ to ensure it allows for clearly defined roles, responsibilities and timescales to be set to keep a person, who is subject to a LADO investigation updated. This should include how it will monitor any actions after a decision to ensure they are completed within the timeframes set out in its own policies and procedures.
47. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

48. I have completed the investigation with a finding of fault causing injustice. The Council agreed to my recommendations to remedy that injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman