Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with a safeguarding concern raised about him. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about how the Council’s Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) dealt with a safeguarding referral made about him. Mr X says the investigation against him was inadequate and relied partly on irrelevant information. He says his employment has been affected by the actions of the Council.

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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. In responding to his complaint, the Council reviewed relevant guidance and information considered by the LADO and sought clarification from the LADO on issues raised by Mr X. The Council did not uphold the majority of Mr X’s complaint.
7. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council which fully outlined the processes used by the LADO, the information considered and how the decision to substantiate the allegation against Mr X was made. It outlined how it reached the decision to substantiate the allegation and why the process was different to other investigations.
8. The Council accepted it should have done more to record its rationale for some of the decisions made and reminded management of the importance of this. This is an appropriate response, so investigation into this point would not lead to a different outcome.
9. Mr X complains that all information wasn’t provided to him when he submitted a subject access request. I will not investigate this issue because this matter relates to data protection therefore the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is better placed to consider the matter.
10. I will also not investigate how the Council dealt with Mr X’s complaints about these matters. 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

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman