Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a social worker giving Mr X permission to record a telephone call, then the Council substantiating a concern about him based on his doing so. Any fault by the Council is unlikely to have caused enough injustice to Mr X to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X said a social worker agreed to him recording a call between them, but the Council later substantiated a concern about him based on him having recorded the call without permission. He said this has caused significant injustice, including a referral to the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS).

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant. I asked the Council for unredacted copies of the records two Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO)-led meetings.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. We declined to investigate Mr X’s complaint about the decision of the LADO that substantiated multiple concerns about him working with children in case 22 007 5898. This meant there was insufficient evidence of fault to warrant investigation of the way the Council reached the decision.
6. Mr X says the injustice caused to him by the matter of the denial of having given permission to record the call has been significant, including a referral to the DBS. However, even if the social worker gave him permission to record the call and later denied it, that would not call into question the decision. This is because the evidence the LADO received was not dependent solely on the social worker. Even without the social worker’s account, the evidence received would have allowed the LADO to reach the decision to substantiate concerns that Mr X might pose a risk to children.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of injustice caused by fault to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman