Summary: We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint the Council failed to ensure her allegations about a Social Worker were considered fairly and thoroughly. Doing so would not be likely to lead to a substantially different outcome from that already achieved.

The complaint

1. Miss B complains the Council failed to properly consider her allegations of inappropriate sexual behaviour by a Social Worker. She believes the Council did not take account of the information she provided.

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 we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation and there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss B is a former Looked After Child who was entitled to receive leaving care support from the Council as a young adult.
7. In September 2023, Miss B disclosed to the Council that a Social Worker allocated to her had behaved in an inappropriate sexual manner towards her in person and by telephone.
8. The Council Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) oversaw the investigation into Miss B’s allegations that somebody who works with children has behaved in a way that may pose a risk to children.
9. It is Miss B’s contention the Council failed to take proper account of the information she provided during the course of the investigation into her allegations.
10. In December 2023, the Council wrote to Miss B to confirm it could not uphold or substantiate the allegations she had made. Miss B disagrees with this decision. But it is not for the Ombudsman to take a view on whether it is correct. Rather, it is to consider whether there is evidence of significant fault in the way the decision was made, and whether it is likely that any such fault led to an outcome which would not otherwise have been the case. There is no such evidence.
11. The Council has explained to Miss B the action it had taken to consider her allegations, and the steps has taken to help ensure she feels safe and supported when it completes her Care Act Assessment. Whether the LADO could have obtained further information, which may have led to a different outcome, is not relevant. The actions they did take appear reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances. They obtained information which satisfied them that the allegations could not be upheld or substantiated. That was a matter for their professional judgement and the decision is not demonstrably flawed. That being the case, it is not for the Ombudsman to criticise it or intervene to substitute an alternative view. Investigation is therefore not warranted.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant our involvement, nor a worthwhile outcome for us to achieve to commit our resource.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman