Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to a safeguarding referral. The action the Council has agreed to take is sufficient to remedy any injustice caused and we would not achieve more by investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X said a company running a leisure centre failed to act to protect his child from harm after another child abused him physically and sexually while attending swimming lessons. He said the Council at first failed to respond properly and that it took a lot of badgering to get it to act.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Although the company operating the leisure centre does so on behalf of a district council, the safeguarding authority is Oxfordshire County Council. Mr X said it took a lot of badgering to get the Council to deal with the matters he raised about the company’s alleged failure to log and respond properly to the incidents he reported. The Council told him in early August 2022 it had at first thought the matter related to the failure of the company to deal properly with Mr X’s complaint. However, it stated that it had become clear it was a complaint of his child having repeatedly complained of being abused in the company’s care and that the company had dismissed what was reported. It confirmed it would make a further enquiry of the company to investigate how the company had dealt with the safeguarding concerns.
6. The Council has already confirmed to Mr X it will take the action we would have recommended had we investigated and found fault, which is to investigate whether there was a safeguarding failure by the company in responding to what Mr X and his child reported. Beyond that, the only issue is whether the Council ought to have understood from the outset that the key matter was safeguarding by the company rather than how the company dealt with Mr X’s complaint. There is unlikely to be sufficient fault or injustice in this matter alone to warrant investigation, and investigation would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:

• The action agreed by the Council is sufficient to remedy any injustice caused; and
• Investigation of whether the Council should have realised more quickly the nature of the complaint is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman