Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's handling of safeguarding allegations against him. This is because further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council handled safeguarding allegations against him unfairly. He says he was not given a fair opportunity to respond before the Council reached its conclusions. Mr X says the Council did not engage with him properly during the safeguarding process and reached findings without fully considering his account. He says his service was subsequently suspended and closed. Mr X says this caused the loss of placements, income and his business, as well as reputational damage, stress and anxiety. He wants the Council to acknowledge procedural failings, correct its records, review the allegations, and provide financial redress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate a complaint if it is about certain contractual or other commercial transactions. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5a, paragraph 3, as amended)
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:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, 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 information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council considered Mr X's complaint through its complaint’s procedure. It did not uphold his complaint about the suspension of the service. It said safeguarding concerns took precedence over contractual and commissioning arrangements and justified its decision to suspend placements and stop using the service.
8. The Council also considered Mr X's concerns about the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) process, which oversees the management of allegations made against adults who work with or care for children. It found the LADO had followed the relevant safeguarding procedures and reached its decisions appropriately. However, it accepted that Mr X had not been given an opportunity to present his views before the allegations were substantiated. To address this, it offered him the opportunity to provide written representations and identified a learning point for future cases where the subject of allegations is also the owner or operator of the service.
9. We cannot investigate any part of Mr X’s complaint linked to the Council’s decision to suspend and cease commissioning placements from his supported accommodation service. The complaint arises from the Council’s contractual and commissioning relationship with a service provider. The injustices Mr X identifies, are commercial consequences of that decision and, as outlined in paragraph 3, fall outside our jurisdiction.
10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the LADO process because, based on the evidence I have seen, further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome. The Council considered Mr X’s concerns through its complaints process, concluded it had followed the safeguarding process appropriately and gave him an opportunity to provide representations after identifying he had not previously been able to provide his views.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman