Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the safeguarding actions of the Council. It found a safeguarding allegation against Mrs X to be unsubstantiated, so it was not responsible for her dismissal from work. We are legally prevented from investigating the actions of her former employer.

The complaint

1. Mrs X said the Council’s safeguarding officer (LADO) should have found an allegation involving her to be malicious or false, rather than being unsubstantiated. She said her employer presented false information and she was kept in the dark about what had been alleged. She said the statements she had made in ignorance were then used against her by her employer. She wanted her name cleared and the decision changed.

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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We cannot investigate most complaints about what happens in schools. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 5(2), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The LADO’s role in cases such as this is limited. It does not involve an investigation of reported incidents, or the presenting of evidence to the person involved. Instead, it involves a check that processes have been followed to protect children. In this case, the LADO concluded the allegation that a child had been harmed in an incident involving Mrs X was unsubstantiated. Investigation by us would be unlikely to find the LADO acted with fault in a way that caused injustice to Mrs X, not least because no allegation was substantiated involving her. That Mrs X feels her name has been besmirched and that she needs it cleared does not alter that.
8. We cannot investigate the actions and decisions of a school, which underlie this matter.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because:

• There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or injustice flowing from its actions to warrant our further involvement; and
• We are legally prevented from investigating the actions of a school that underlie this complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman