The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s substantiating concerns about Mr X’s care of a foster child. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant investigation.
The complaint
Mr X said the Council was at fault in substantiating concerns raised at a Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO)-led meeting about his care of a foster child and he disputes that there was any harm to the child. He said this had resulted in a referral to the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS).
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.(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant. I asked the Council for confidential unredacted copies of the records of two LADO meetings.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Safeguarding children involves eliminating risk. That includes preventing those who may pose a risk to children from working with them. It is not subject to the same standard of proof required in a court of law in a criminal case. The unredacted records of the LADO meetings contained direct evidence of multiple matters of concern. They were such that the decision that Mr X might pose a risk to children was a matter of professional judgement, not a matter of fault.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman