Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a safeguarding referral made by a Council officer involving Ms X, and associated actions of the Council. Investigation by us would be unlikely to add to the Council’s own investigation, or to lead to the outcome Ms X is seeking.

The complaint

1. Ms X said a Council officer made an unjustified safeguarding referral concerning her. She also complained about other matters relating to the Council’s response to her complaint. Ms X wants an email sent to her by an officer retracted.

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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal; or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

3. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The correspondence between Ms X and the Council, which she provided, shows the nature of her work means she has regular contact with staff in children’s social care. It also shows the matters complained of happened in a context of the PA having chased payment of an invoice by the Council, and the Council asking if Ms X could send someone to a meeting about a child.
7. A Council officer said she found an email from Ms X unacceptable and would refer the matter to the Council’s safeguarding officer for children (LADO). The LADO did not find the matter met the threshold for a safeguarding matter.
8. The LADO has already confirmed there is no safeguarding matter to pursue. Any injustice is thus likely to be limited to Ms X’s outrage at the content of the email from the officer. What was stated by the officer in the email was an opinion, which the officer maintains. Investigation by us would be unlikely to lead to a finding that the officer should change her opinion, even if the LADO has deemed the matter referred does not meet the required threshold.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because doing so would be unlikely to add to the Council’s own investigation or lead to any worthwhile outcome, and the injustice caused to Ms X is likely to be limited.
10. It follows that we will not investigate the Council’s actions in responding to Ms X’s complaint about this matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman