The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a decision taken by the Council’s Local Authority Designated Officer. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the LADO made their decision. We cannot consider the rest of Mr X’s complaint as we have no powers to investigate complaints about the internal management of schools.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, contacted the Council’s Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) with concerns about an individual who works with his child’s school. Mr X is unhappy with how the LADO considered his concerns and the outcome of their investigation. Mr X is also unhappy with how his child’s school has dealt with his concerns.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or it would be reasonable for the person to ask for an organisation review or appeal.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) We cannot investigate complaints about what happens in schools. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 5(b), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The LADO is a person responsible for the management and oversight of investigations into allegations that somebody who works with children has behaved in a way that may pose a risk to children.
Mr X contacted the LADO with concerns about a member of staff who works with his child’s school. The LADO considered Mr X’s concerns and decided there were no reasons the member of staff could not continue to work for the school. They decided there was no evidence the school had failed to follow safeguarding procedures. The LADO closed the referral.
I understand how concerned Mr X is by the issue at the heart of his complaint. But we will not start an investigation. This is because the Ombudsman is not a right of appeal for people who disagree with a council’s decision. We cannot question decisions of professional judgment unless there is clear fault in how they were reached.
In this case, the LADO considered Mr X’s concerns and decided they did not constitute a safeguarding concern. They decided no further action was necessary and explained their decision to Mr X. While Mr X clearly disagrees with this decision, there is not enough evidence of fault in how it was reached for us to become involved.
We also have no powers to investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the school has dealt with his concerns. This is because the exclusion at paragraph 3 applies. We have no powers to consider complaints about what happens in schools. Each school must, however, have a complaints procedure, and it is open to Mr X to pursue his concerns via this route.
In his complaint to the Ombudsman, Mr X raised wider concerns about the Council’s Children’s Services team. Mr X can raise a formal complaint with the Council about these issues. If he was unhappy with the response he could come back to the Ombudsman. We could then assess the complaint and decide if an investigation was appropriate.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s Local Authority Designated Officer because there is not enough evidence of fault. We also have no powers to consider complaints about what happens in schools.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman