Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council oversaw an investigation into a safeguarding concern made about him. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council oversaw the investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about how the Council’s Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) oversaw a safeguarding investigation. He says the Council did not tell him directly about the investigation and he did not get the chance to provide his account. Mr X also complains the process was biased because some evidence used came from a previous employer whom he had made a whistleblowing complaint about.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Local authorities are expected to appoint a Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) to manage and oversee investigations into allegations that somebody who works with children has behaved in a way that may pose a risk to them.
6. Mr X’s previous employer told the Council of concerns about his conduct, which may pose a risk to children. The LADO coordinated an investigation into these allegations. As part of the enquiry, information was gathered from Mr X’s current and former employers, alongside liaison with Adult Safeguarding and Children’s Services within the Council. The professionals involved agreed the concerns were substantiated. The LADO agreed.
7. Mr X complains he wasn’t told about the safeguarding allegation and was not given the opportunity to explain what happened. A LADO is not responsible for communicating directly with the person who is the subject of an allegation and is not required to gather their account of what happened. There is therefore insufficient evidence of fault in the LADO not contacting Mr X as part of the investigation.
8. Mr X also complains the investigation was biased because some evidence came from a previous employer against whom he had raised a whistleblowing concern. He says the Council may not have taken suitable steps to ensure the process was fair.
9. I have reviewed the processes followed and have seen insufficient evidence of fault. I am satisfied the investigation considered multiple sources of evidence and did not disproportionately rely on evidence from the previous employer.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how Council in how oversaw the investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman