Summary: Mr X complained a council social worker made an improper Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) referral about him. Mr X says this has had an adverse impact on vetting for his job. The Ombudsman found fault with the Council. The Council agreed to the Ombudsman’s recommendation to write a letter confirming the Council social worker made an improper referral to the LADO.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained a council social worker made a Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) referral about him which was an improper use of the LADO referral process.
2. Mr X says the Council made this referral despite having no safeguarding concerns about him.
3. Mr X says this referral may have an adverse impact on vetting for his job and has caused him distress and inconvenience.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. 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)
6. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I have considered all the information Mr X. I have also asked the Council questions and requested information, and in turn have considered the Council’s response.
8. Mr X and the Council provided comments on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Protecting Children from harm

9. The Council has a duty to investigate if they have reasonable cause to suspect that a child who lives in their area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. This duty comes under Section 47 of the Children Act
10. The government has issued guidance to Councils managing cases where there are concerns about a child’s safety or welfare.
11. The Council must have reasonable cause to suspect that a child is likely to suffer harm before it can enquire. The Council cannot investigate to see if there is a problem unless it has reasonable cause for suspicion.

Allegations against Foster Carers

12. The Government has issued National Minimum Standards for fostering services. Standard 22 sets out how fostering services should handle allegations and suspicions of harm by foster carers.
13. Standard 22.6 says, “Allegations against people that work with children or members of the fostering household are reported by the fostering service to the LADO. This includes allegations that on the face of it may appear relatively insignificant or that have also been reported directly to the police or Children and Family Services.”

Buckinghamshire Council’s Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO)

14. The Council’s LADO is responsible for overseeing management of all allegations against people in a position of trust working with children in the Council area. These allegations can be made when a person has, or may have:
• Harmed a child.
• Committed an offence against a child.
• Behaved towards a child, or children, in a way that indicates they may pose a risk of harm to children.
15. The LADO’s referral form says that if a person receives an allegation meeting any of the criteria they should report this to the LADO within one working day. The form also says a person should consult with the LADO service for advice and support before completing a referral form.
16. The LADO will review any referrals and decide on the correct next steps. If the LADO decides the referral does not meet its threshold it will take no further action.

What happened

Background

17. Mr X fostered a child, Y, with his partner, Mrs X. Mr X, Mrs X and Y had regular contact with the Council about Y’s fostering situation. Mr and Mrs X provided Foster Carer Record Sheets to the Council monthly to provide updates.

Events leading up to Mr X’s complaint

18. Mr and Mrs X provided a Foster Carer Record Sheet to the Council for August 2020. This sheet confirmed Mr and Mrs X had concerns about sexual behaviour from Y, through her mobile telephone, towards a boy. Mr and Mrs X confirmed they had told Y’s social worker about these concerns. Mr and Mrs X also reported they were finding it more difficult to control Y’s access to technology.
19. Within the September 2020 Foster Carer Record Sheet Mr and Mrs X reiterated their concerns about Y’s access to technology and her use of it to talk to boys she meets online.
20. Within the October 2020 Foster Carer Record Sheet Mr and Mrs X said Y kept hiding devices in her bedroom which allowed her access to social media. Mr and Mrs X said it had become impossible to keep Y safe online.
21. Y shared photographs of a personal sexual nature with a boy online. The boy made these pictures public and Y’s school told Mr and Mrs X. Mr and Mrs X reported this incident to the Council.

Events surrounding Mr X’s complaint

22. The Council held a strategy discussion meeting for Y on 10 December 2020 to decide if it needed to take safeguarding action. The meeting noted that Y’s school raised the safeguarding issue with the Council, following discussion with Mr and Mrs X, prompting the meeting. The Council noted Mr and Mrs X concerns about Y’s access to technology and her safety online. No attendee at the meeting raised any concerns about either Mr or Mrs X. The Council decided to complete its Section 47 enquiries.
23. A council social worker, social worker A, received the minutes from the strategy discussion meeting on 15 December 2020. Social worker A noted the minutes stated Mr and Mrs X could not keep Y safe online as they could not keep her off technology. Social worker A says she called the Buckinghamshire LADO for advice as she was unsure if the threshold was met for a LADO referral. Social worker A says the LADO told her to make a referral to a different LADO, which was out of their area, and that it could not provide advice. The Buckinghamshire LADO has advised it has no records of a call from social worker A.
24. On 16 December 2020, the Council met with Mr and Mrs X as part of the Section 47 enquiries. The Council noted that Y gets “love and attention from her fosters carers” and raised no concerns about either Mr or Mrs X.
25. Social worker A made a LADO referral to the out of area LADO on 18 December 2020. The LADO referral provided details of Y, Mrs X and Mr X and noted that Mr X was a police officer. The LADO referral detailed the concerns about Y sending personal sexually natured photographs to a boy. The LADO referral did not raise any concerns about Mr or Mrs X.

Mr X’s complaint

26. A social worker told Mrs X about the LADO referral on 18 December 2020. Mr X complained to the Council about the LADO referral and asked for an explanation why social worker A made the referral.
27. Social worker A’s manager called Mr X on 21 December 2020 in response to his complaint. The manager explained that social worker A thought that she should automatically refer a foster carer to the LADO for consultation when there was an open Section 47 enquiry. The manager of Buckinghamshire’s LADO would not offer advice so social worker completed the referral. The manager said the result would like be “No further action”. The manager also promised to feedback to the social worker to only consult with the LADO if there was a suggestion the carer had acted in a way which may have harmed the child.
28. On 22 December 2020, the out of area LADO confirmed it had reviewed the referral and would not be taking any action. The Council confirmed this with Mr X on 23 December 2020. The Council also confirmed it would not formally record any allegations against Mr or Mrs X on its system.
29. On 23 February 2021, Mr X complained to the Council. Mr X said he had concerns about the LADO referral in December 2020. Mr X said that by making the LADO referral, social worker A was implying he was the person presenting potential harm to Y. Mr X said the LADO referral was now flagged when he was getting vetting for his work. Mr X asked the Council to remove the referral from partner agencies and delete any record of the referral.
30. The Council liaised with Mr X and provided him with details about the LADO referral. On 16 April 2021, social worker A’s manager told Mr X she was on annual leave on the day the social worker A made the LADO referral. The manager said she would have told social worker A not to make the LADO referral. The manager said this was because “there was no reason to involve LADO as there was no suggestion that any person in a position of trust had acted in a way that had harmed children”. The manager said the LADO decided it should take no further action following the referral so no suggestion that either Mr or Mrs X had acted in a way that harmed Y. The Council said the out of area LADO had recorded the referral on its system but noted it as not meeting the threshold and had not shared this information.
31. Mr X responded to the Council on 20 April 2021. Mr X complained about the Council sharing false information through the LADO referral. Mr X said he had concerns about the out of area LADO sharing the information from the referral. Mr X asked that all agencies removed any details about the LADO referral under his rights to erasure of data under the Data Protection Act.
32. The Council responded on 21 May 2021 to advise, following consultation with data protection officer, that it had not broken data protection regulations. The Council said it could not delete the referral.
33. Mr X responded on 3 June 2021 to advise he was dissatisfied with the response. Mr X said the existence of the LADO referral itself raised concerns about him given the nature of his job. Mr X said he had complained to the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) and asked the Council to reconsider its position.
34. The Council said it had passed this matter to a data protection officer who will provide a response by 12 July 2021.
35. The Council’s data protection team responded to Mr X on 9 July 2021. The Council upheld its decision not to erase the information because it had shared this information for a valid purpose, excluding it from the right of erasure.

Analysis

36. Mr X complained a council social worker made a Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) referral about him which was an improper use of the LADO referral process.
37. The Council has a general duty to investigate if they have reasonable cause to suspect a child in their area is suffering harm. But, this responsibility is separate to a council officer’s responsibility to make a referral to the LADO.
38. The Buckinghamshire LADO outlines that a referral should be made to it when a person receives an allegation about a person in a position of authority for a child. In the circumstances of Mr X’s complaint, his position as a foster carer for Y places him in a position of authority and he would be subject to the potential of a LADO referral.
39. The Buckingham LADO says that a person should only make a referral in certain circumstances. This includes when an allegation shows that a person has, or may have, harmed a child, committed an offence against a child or behaved towards a child that indicates a risk of harm.
40. The Council says social worker A made the referral to the LADO following receipt of the strategy minute meetings from 10 December 2020. Nothing in the strategy minute meetings from 10 December 2020 make any allegations about either Mr X or Mrs X. Also, nothing from the strategy minute meetings would cause concerns that either Mr X or Mrs X would meet any of the three LADO referral threshold criteria.
41. Social worker A’s manager has also confirmed in their correspondence of 16 April 2021 that “there was no reason to involve LADO as there was no suggestion that any person in a position of trust had acted in a way that had harmed children”. Through the Council’s contact with Mr X it has confirmed social worker A was at fault in completing the LADO referral. I agree social worker A was at fault for completing the LADO referral in December 2020, this was an improper use of the LADO referral process.
42. The Buckinghamshire LADO referral form social worker A completed says that a person should consult with the LADO before making a referral. The LADO says as part of its process it keeps records of all referrals and consultations.
43. Social worker A said they consulted with the Buckinghamshire LADO before making the referral. The Council has not provided any notes or records supporting social worker A consulted with the LADO. Social worker A has not made any statement about consulting with the out of area LADO.
44. The Buckinghamshire LADO has told the Council it has no records of contact to consult about the December 2020 referral. The LADO referral form social worker A submitted also leaves the section blank about the advice they received from the LADO before completing the form.
45. Social worker A did not consult with the Buckinghamshire LADO before completing the referral. Social worker A also did not consult with the out of area LADO. The failure of social worker A to consult before referral is fault.
46. Social worker A’s failure to follow the referral process, by failing to consult, and improper use of the referral process is fault.
47. The Council has already recognised this fault, provided feedback to social worker A and improved its guidance material on referrals to the LADO. The improved guidance materials highlight the importance of consultation with the LADO as the first step as part of a LADO referral. I am satisfied the Council has already made suitable service improvements to address the issues in Mr X’s complaint.
48. While the Council has improved its service following Mr X’s complaint, Mr X experienced a personal injustice because of the improper referral. Mr X has experienced distress and frustration by referral to the LADO implying an allegation against him.
49. The Buckinghamshire LADO may not hold any information about the referral about Mr X but the out of area LADO has kept information. This has caused Mr X professional difficulties with vetting.
50. The Ombudsman cannot require any council to remove data it holds, this is a matter for the Information Commissioners Office (ICO). But the Ombudsman recommends the Council apologises to Mr X for the improper use of the referral process and for the distress and frustration this has caused him. The Council should also write a letter to Mr X confirming its social worker should not have completed a referral to the LADO about Mr X.

Back to top

Agreed action

51. Within one month of the Ombudsman’s decision, the Council should:
• Write a letter to Mr X confirming its social worker should not have completed a referral to the LADO about Mr X. The Council should confirm no allegations were made about Mr X about harm, or potential of harm he presented, to Y.

Back to top

Final decision

52. There was fault leading to injustice. As the Council accepted my recommendation, I will complete my investigation as I consider that a suitable remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman