Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) service. This is because further investigation is unlikely to achieve a worthwhile outcome.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council, through its LADO service, did not ensure a fair and thorough safeguarding allegations process. She says the Council relied on inaccurate information provided by her employer, failed to inform her of the final LADO outcome and it did not ensure she received a key investigation report. She also says it failed to keep adequate records or secure CCTV evidence.

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 there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision.
6. There is also no appeal to the outcome of the safeguarding Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) process. The adjudication is a professional decision based on the balance of probability.
7. The Council's LADO provides advice and oversight in relation to allegations against people who work with children. The employer or voluntary organisation is responsible for carrying out any employment investigation and determining the outcome. The LADO's role is to oversee and coordinate the allegations process.
8. The available evidence shows the LADO maintained oversight of the employer's investigation, liaised with relevant agencies, considered the evidence available, including CCTV evidence, and sought a formal safeguarding outcome before closing the case.
9. Mrs X says the Council relied on inaccurate information that she was a grandmother. The Council established this information had been provided by her employer. It subsequently corrected the record. The inaccurate information did not lead to a referral to Children's Services. There is insufficient evidence it affected the final LADO outcome, which concerned the incident in the workplace.
10. Mrs X says she was not informed of the final LADO outcome and only discovered it through a subject access request. The Council's procedure envisaged that the employer would keep her informed. The records show the LADO asked the employer to notify Mrs X of the final outcome.
11. The Council considered this issue through its complaints procedure and identified potential learning about how final LADO outcomes are communicated. Mrs X was already aware of the allegations and the employer's conclusions. She had also participated in the disciplinary and appeal processes. Therefore, any uncertainty about communication of the final LADO categorisation did not prevent her from responding to the allegations during the investigation.
12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we could not achieve a worthwhile outcome by investigating further. We have not seen evidence the matters complained about prevented Mrs X from understanding or responding to the allegations against her. We also cannot reconsider or overturn the substantiated safeguarding outcome itself because there is no appeal against a LADO decision and the Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because further investigation is unlikely to achieve a worthwhile outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman