Derbyshire County Council (24 014 078)

Category : Children's care services > Child protection

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 10 Feb 2025

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about how her ex employer classified an allegation against her. There is not enough direct injustice to Ms X to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

  1. Ms X says a Council’s Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) incorrectly advised her former employer.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered information provided by Ms X which included the Council’s final reply.
  2. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

  1. Over a year after Ms X left the employment of Company Y, someone made an allegation about Ms X’s behaviour whilst they had been employed. Ms X denied the allegations. Company Y reported the allegations and its investigation to the Council’s LADO.
  2. Ms X says Company Y intended to mark the allegations as ‘false’, but she says following the LADO’s advice changed this to ‘unfounded’. She says this is not fair. She says this has left her distressed and unable to leave the house at times. She has sought medical assistance.
  3. The 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.
  4. The difference between an allegation being classified as ‘unfounded’ rather than ‘false’ is not significant enough to justify our investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because the injustice between the two classifications is not significant enough to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings