Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a Council investigation completed under its children’s safeguarding processes. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement, and it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about a Council’s children’s safeguarding investigation completed under the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) process. She says she should not have been investigated and the recorded outcome forced her to resign from her professional roles due to reputational harm, causing her financial loss and distress. She wants the Council to remove her from the investigation and pay financial redress.

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.

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

3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X was jointly approved as a foster carer with Mr Y.
6. The Council received allegations against Mr Y and decided to carry out an investigation under the LADO process. It investigated both Mrs X and Mr Y as part of this.
7. Mrs X complained that the Council included her in its investigation but the allegations were against Mr Y only.
8. In its complaint response, the Council said it decided it was appropriate to investigate Mrs X because she lived with Mr Y and they were jointly approved as foster carers.
9. We will not investigate this part of Mrs X’s complaint. The Council explained why it included Mrs X within its investigation, and its reasons seem appropriate under its safeguarding responsibilities. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to justify investigation.
10. The Council issued the outcome of its investigation. It found substantiated allegations against Mrs X and Mr Y.
11. Mrs X complained the Council included her under its outcome when the substantiated allegations were against Mr Y only. Following this outcome, she said she had no choice but to resign from her professional roles.
12. In its complaint response, the Council accepted that the substantiated allegations were against Mr Y and did not apply to Mrs X. It accepted it should have made this clear in its decision. It apologised for the distress it caused her and agreed to change her investigation finding to unsubstantiated. It said it had improved its practices for investigations involving joint foster carers, to prevent a similar occurrence happening again.
13. The Council did not accept its actions meant Mrs X had to resign from her professional roles because it had not advised or recommended this.
14. Mrs X confirmed the Council did not direct her to resign from her professional roles.
15. We will not investigate this part of Mrs X’s complaint. The Council has accepted fault in its recording of the investigation’s findings. It does not accept it caused Mrs X to resign her professional roles, and Mrs X confirms it did not direct her to this effect. The Council’s corrective action, apology, and actions to prevent similar mistakes were therefore an appropriate response. It is unlikely further investigation by us would lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to investigate her under its children’s safeguarding process because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. We will not investigate her complaint about the recording of the investigation findings. It is unlikely our involvement would lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman