Summary: Mrs X, a foster carer complained about the outcome of the Council’s investigation into an allegation made against her by a foster child she cared for. There was no fault in how the Council investigated and substantiated the allegations. However, the Council's policy around roles and responsibilities towards people subject to investigations is not clearly defined which caused Mrs X confusion and uncertainty. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X and review its policy.

The complaint

1. Mrs X, a foster carer complained about the Council’s investigation into an allegation made against her by foster children who she cared for. She complained the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) failed to properly oversee the investigation or ensure her voice was heard. Mrs X said the Council wrongly substantiated the allegations.
2. Mrs X says the matter has caused her distress, frustration and loss of income.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I spoke to Mrs X about her complaint and considered information she provided.
6. I considered the Council’s response to my enquiry letter.
7. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on the draft decision. I considered comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Allegations against people working with children

8. Councils have a duty to investigate if there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child in its area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. The council must decide whether it should take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. (Children Act 1989, section 47).
9. Under section 47 of the Children Act 1989, where a council has reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm, it has a duty to make such enquiries as it considers necessary to decide whether to take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. Such enquiries should be initiated where there are concerns about abuse or neglect.

Allegations against foster carers

10. The National Fostering Minimum Standards says investigations into allegations against carers should be carried out quickly and should provide protection to the child but also support to the person subject to the investigation. Foster carers should be told in writing about any allegations against them and given information about the timescale for completing the investigation.

Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO)

11. The Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) is a person responsible for managing and overseeing investigations into allegations that somebody who works with children has behaved in a way that may pose a risk to children.

The Council’s procedures

12. The ‘Tees Safeguarding Children Partnership procedures’ outlines the key roles and responsibilities to be undertaken when responding to allegations against people working with children.
13. The LADO’s responsibility includes:
• Managing and overseeing the investigation.
• Monitoring and recording the progress of the case, usually on a monthly basis, to ensure they are dealt with as quickly as possible.
• Ensuring a child is safeguarded and their voice is heard.
• Ensuring there is a consistent and fair process for all adults working with children and young people where an allegation is made.
14. Following an allegation a strategy meeting will take place to decide how to manage the investigation. Many cases can be managed through a discussion between the senior manager, the Police, any other relevant agency and the LADO. A record of the meeting, the discussion and any actions will be recorded.
15. The procedures state it is the responsibility of the employer to inform the person of any allegation, keep them up to date about the progress of the case and inform them of the outcome at the conclusion of the case.
16. The procedures outline the different outcomes of the case which are determined at a final strategy meeting. These include:
• No further action – the allegation did not meet the criteria for investigation.
• Substantiated – sufficient evidence to prove the allegation.
• False – sufficient evidence to disprove the allegation.
• Malicious – sufficient evidence to disprove the allegation and there has been a deliberate act to deceive.
• Unfounded – where there is no evidence which supports the allegation being made.
• Unsubstantiated – insufficient evidence to prove or disprove the allegation. The term does not imply guilt or innocence.
17. The policy states the final outcome will also include any sanction imposed. The employer will inform the relevant individual of the outcome and any action to be taken. The LADO should ensure employers feedback to the Council on any actions taken against the individual.
18. There is no appeal to the outcome of the Safeguarding LADO process. The adjudication is a professional decision based on the balance of probability.

What happened

19. Mrs X is a foster carer, employed by a fostering agency. In 2023 Mrs X was fostering three children all aged under 12 years of age. The children previously lived in Council B’s area and as such their social worker (SW1) worked for Council B.
20. During 2023 SW1 contacted the Council after one of the foster children living with Mrs X made an allegation against her that she had harmed them and it was referred to the LADO. The Council removed the children from Mrs X’s care and due to nature of the allegation also informed the police.
21. The LADO held a strategy meeting with other professionals including Mrs X’s supervising social worker from the fostering agency and SW1 to discuss the allegations. It was decided to commence section 47 enquiries, jointly with Council B. Records of the meeting show the police decided to take no further action against Mrs X. The LADO chaired the meeting and actions were agreed to obtain an account from Mrs X and hold a further strategy meeting within two weeks.
22. Records show the LADO held another strategy meeting. The notes show Mrs X was told of the allegations by her supervising social worker, which she denied and had given an account.
23. The LADO held a final strategy meeting a couple of weeks later. Those present discussed the allegations again including the accounts given from the children and Mrs X. The outcome being that the allegation, on balance, was substantiated. The LADO recorded there were lessons for Mrs X to learn but nothing more than that. The LADO said they would send the outcome to Mrs X’s fostering agency who would take forward the learning.
24. The LADO sent an email to the fostering agency the same day. They advised the agency to ensure it provided Mrs X with the outcome in writing and to place a copy on her personnel file. It said the agency should support Mrs X and encourage her to change by reflecting on the outcome.
25. Council B completed the section 47 enquiries shortly after which recorded the outcome of the LADO investigation. The section 47 recorded the children were not at risk as they were now settled living elsewhere.
26. Mrs X complained to the Council shortly after the investigations had concluded. She complained about the outcome of the investigation and said the Council had failed to make an evidence-based decision. Mrs X said the investigation took too long and she was not given the opportunity to respond to the allegations. She also said the LADO discussed a historical allegation which she says was a breach of confidentiality and nothing to do with the current allegations. Mrs X said the LADO was not impartial and asked for the decision to be retracted. Mrs X said she was not given a copy of any reports or fully informed of the outcome in a timely manner.
27. The Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint and did not uphold any of her points. It said:
• Following the allegations against her the threshold was met to initiate a strategy discussion and to carry out section 47 enquiries. The final decision was made on the balance of probabilities.
• Council B carried out section 47 enquiries but said the matter was progressed timely and fairly.
• The outcome was sent to the agency to take forward.
• Information such as historical matters were discussed and deemed relevant to the safeguarding of children however it was noted in the minutes of the strategy meetings that the historical allegation was not substantiated.
28. Mrs X asked to escalate her complaint however the Council declined stating it had nothing further to add.
29. A standards of care panel considered Mrs X’s case in February 2024 which Mrs X attended. Records show Mrs X was asked only to reflect on the findings on take on any learning from the agency. Mrs X was allowed to continue fostering and records show she has done so following the panel.
30. Mrs X remained unhappy and complained to us.

My findings

31. Following the allegations against Mrs X and the subsequent referral from Council B the Council appropriately held a strategy meeting to discuss how to proceed. It decided section 47 enquiries should begin which Council B carried out on its behalf. There was no fault in that decision and the rationale is recorded in the strategy meeting minutes.
32. The LADO carried out strategy meetings with other professionals present, ensured Mrs X provided an account via her supervising social worker and considered accounts from the children. The LADO decided to substantiate the allegations on the balance of probabilities which they are entitled to do. Council B carried out section 47 enquiries which ended as the children were no longer at risk. The whole process took 37 working days.
33. Following the conclusion of the investigation the Council sent Mrs X’s fostering agency the outcome and advised it, as her employer to follow up the learning with her. There were no other sanctions placed on Mrs X.
34. 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. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision to substantiate the allegations against Mrs X was right or wrong, regardless of whether there is disagreement about that decision. The Council followed the correct process in investigating the allegations against Mrs X and was not at fault.
35. However, it is clear Mrs X felt she was not adequately involved in the process and that communication was poor. While not affecting the overall outcome, the Council’s policy on roles and responsibilities both during and after investigations is not clear. Much of the responsibility to update Mrs X and to provide her with updates, reports and outcomes lies with her fostering agency. However, the Council’s policy does not clearly define this which on balance, left Mrs X confused around whether it was the Council/LADO’s role or the role of the agency. The lack of clarity in the policy around role and responsibilities towards the person under investigation is fault. It caused Mrs X confusion and uncertainty and contributed to her feeling disengaged during the investigation.

Back to top

Agreed action

36. Within one month of the final decision the Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X for the confusion and uncertainty caused to her during the investigation process about who was responsible for engaging and updating her during the investigation both during and after, caused by a lack of clarity in the Council’s policy. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended.
37. Within three months of the final decision the Council agreed to review its ‘Tees Safeguarding Children Partnership procedures’ to ensure it clearly defines roles and responsibilities towards the person who works with or cares for children who is subject to an investigation about an allegation made against them. It should outline who is responsible for engaging the person during the process and for providing updates, copies of documents, outcomes and for monitoring compliance with any recommendations and sanctions.
38. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

39. I completed this investigation. I found fault and the Council agreed to my recommendations to remedy the injustice caused and prevent future recurrence of that fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman