Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the actions of the Council relating to an incident that led to a substantiated safeguarding concern. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation. Another body is better placed than us to consider an alleged data breach. We cannot investigate the actions of a representative of a school.

The complaint

1. Ms X said a social worker lied about advice given to her when police and other persons attended the premises where she was working with children. She said the harm to the children was caused by police, not her, but the Council wrongly blamed her. She said it wrongly substantiated a safeguarding concern about her and had refused to view police video footage that would have corroborated her account. She said a safeguarding meeting was not conducted properly as, for example, she had not been given the opportunity to present her account. She said a former employer was invited to the meeting and the Council wrongly shared her data with them.

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
• 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)
4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. We cannot investigate most complaints about what happens in schools. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 5(2), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant, which included her complaint correspondence with the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. It is not disputed that police and other workers attended premises where Ms X was working with children. They intended to remove Ms X. In safeguarding terms, there is no dispute that it would have been undesirable for the children to witness the removal of Ms X.
9. Ms X said a social worker told her the children should remain until they were collected by their parents as normal at the end of the day. She said he then lied about that, leading to the wrongly substantiated finding by the safeguarding officer (LADO), and that the Council refused to view the whole police footage. She said the police were responsible for the harm to the children.
10. The Council said the social worker did not advise Ms X as she claimed. It said she declined repeated requests by police during the course of a day to call parents of the children, and that police were obliged to remove two children for their own protection. It said police footage showed distressed children.
11. Allowing children to remain in a situation of confrontation between adults is regarded as exposing them to a risk of harm, be it emotional or otherwise. That is commonly understood by professionals working with children. On the balance of probabilities, it is unlikely that a social worker would advise a person not to call the parents of children in such a situation to remove them. Even if such advice had been given, it would still be reasonable to comply with a police request that accorded with the duty to protect children.
12. A LADO’s role is simply to decide if a person is likely to have acted in a way that harmed or created risk of harm to a child. It is not the same as a court. Reducing or eliminating the risk of harm to children takes priority. While Ms X says the police video footage supports her account, the LADO was entitled to reach a decision based on the evidence provided by the police and other bodies.
13. Alleged data breaches are matters the Information Commissioner is better placed than us to consider. This is because they have powers to determine a breach and to impose penalties. We lack those powers.
14. We cannot investigate the actions of a representative of a school as a legal bar prevents us doing so.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because:

• there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our further involvement;
• another body is better placed than us to consider complaints about data; and
• a legal bar prevents us investigating the actions of a school.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman