Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Mr and
Mrs X’s complaint about a referral made to the Council’s LADO about Mr X. There is not enough evidence of fault in the decision by the Council’s early help service to make the referral. Although the Council has accepted that it made mistakes in how it processed the referral, it has already apologised and has outlined plans to train its staff. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome for Mr and Mrs X.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains on behalf of her husband, Mr X. She says the Council’s ‘early help’ service made a baseless referral about Mr X to its ‘local authority designated officer’ (LADO), who manages and oversees allegations against people who work with children. She says the referral was made despite neither the Police nor the Council’s children’s social care service having any concerns about Mr X or his children.
2. Mrs X says the LADO referral was partly based on assumptions around Mr X’s ‘African way’ of parenting. She says the Council admitted that racially insensitive language had been used in the referral but dismissed the impact of this language.
3. Mrs X says Mr X has been suspended from his voluntary football coaching roles. She also says the LADO referral caused him distress. She wants the Council to acknowledge its mistake, and she wants support working with the Football Association (FA) to lift Mr X’s unfair suspension. She also wants the Council’s early help staff to undergo cultural sensitivity and anti-bias training.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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;
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement;
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation;
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome;
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants; or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant policy.
6. Mrs 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

7. The Council’s local safeguarding children partnership (SCP) has a procedure for managing allegations against adults who work with children. This procedure says:

“Any allegation against people who work with children should be reported immediately to a senior manager within the organisation or agency and the Local Authority Designated Officer. This should take place within one working day of you becoming aware of the potential harm”.

8. The procedure defines an ‘allegation’ as relating to someone who works with children who may have:
• behaved in a way that has harmed a child, or may have harmed a child;
• committed a criminal offence against or related to a child;
• behaved towards a child or children in a way that indicates they may pose a risk of harm to children; or
• behaved in a way that indicates they may not be suitable to work with children.
9. Mrs X does not deny that claims about physical chastisement within her and
   Mr X’s home were made. The Council decided that these amounted to an ‘allegation’ against Mr X under the definition in the SCP procedure. This is something which, even if I investigated further, I would not be able to question. I cannot substitute a council officer’s professional judgment with my own.
10. Once the Council decided that an allegation had been made against Mr X, it had to refer it to the LADO. The SCP procedure says any allegation against someone who works with children should be referred. I would not find fault with the Council for making the referral in the circumstances Mrs X describes.
11. The Council certainly should not escape criticism. In particular, it caused a significant delay in referring this matter to the LADO. This gave Mr and Mrs X the false impression that everything had been resolved (as neither the Police nor children’s social care were taking further action). To that extent, this delay caused them distress. But the Council has already acknowledged this and apologised. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome for Mr and Mrs X.
12. I have been unable to identify any further, unresolved injustice to Mr and Mrs X from the delay, because it is not clear how the outcome for Mr X would have been any different if the LADO referral had been made on time.
13. The Council has acknowledged that it used language in its LADO referral which was ‘not culturally sensitive’. It was referring to a description of Mr X’s ‘African mindset’ (in relation to his parenting style).
14. I can see how this language could be considered jarring. But the Council has apologised to Mr and Mrs X and has outlined plans to deliver training to its staff around their use of language. I could not add anything to this.
15. Given that there is no evidence of procedural fault in the LADO referral (beyond delay), it is unlikely I would be able to conclude that racial bias formed part of the motives behind the referral.
16. I can also do nothing to help Mr X with his ongoing case with the FA. This is a separate organisation which operates outside our jurisdiction.
17. For these reasons, it would not be proportionate to carry out further investigation of Mr and Mrs X’s complaint. There would no worthwhile outcome achievable for them.

Back to top

Decision

18. I have discontinued my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman