Summary: There is no evidence of fault in how the Council’s Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) dealt with an investigation after an incident at the school Mrs C manages. There was fault in how it communicated with her, but it has already provided a suitable remedy for this.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs C, complains about the involvement of the Council’s Local Area Designated Officer (LADO), after an incident at the school Mrs C works at. Mrs C says the matter has caused her significant distress. Mrs C complains that:
• The incident did not meet the threshold to be sufficiently serious that harm may have been caused.
• The LADO failed to follow Council procedures when dealing with the matter and went beyond its remit when dealing with the school and when reaching its conclusions.
• Communication from the LADO was poor.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a council’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)
4. Under the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), we will share this decision with Ofsted.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. As part of my investigation I have:
• Reviewed and considered Mrs C’s complaint and documents she provided.
• Reviewed and considered documents provided by the Council.
• Considered relevant guidance and Council policy.
6. I have also sent a draft version of this decision to both parties invited their comments and have considered what they have said.

Back to top

What I found

Allegations against people who work with children

7. Government guidance says councils ensure that allegations against those that work with children are not dealt with in isolation. Councils should designate a particular officer, or team of officers, “to be involved in the management and oversight of allegations against people who work with children.” (Working together to safeguard children, Department for Education 2018, Chapter 2, paragraphs 5 & 6). The officer is known as the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO).

The Council’s procedures for safeguarding children

8. The Council’s procedures explain the difference between an allegation and a concern. For there to be an allegation, the alleged incident must be sufficiently serious as to suggest that harm has or may have been caused to a child.
9. The Councils procedures explain that every organisation which provides a service to children should name a senior manager to whom safeguarding concerns are reported.
10. The senior manager should decide if the case meets the threshold of meeting harm or risk of harm. If so, it must contact the LADO within one working day and the police immediately.
11. Whether an incident meets the criteria to be considered as an allegation may need to be discussed with the LADO.
12. Responsibility for carrying out the investigation remains with the employer. The LADO can provide advice and, where necessary, coordinate the process. The LADO is also responsible for ensuring an appropriate outcome is reached.
13. There are five possible outcomes following an investigation.
• Substantiated: There is sufficient evidence to prove the allegation that a child has been harmed or there is a risk of harm.
• Unsubstantiated: There is insufficient identifiable evidence to prove or disprove the allegation. Does not imply guilt or innocence.
• Unfounded: Indicated that the person making the allegation misinterpreted the incident or was mistake about what they saw.
• Malicious: A deliberate act to deceive.
• False allegations: There is sufficient evidence to disprove the allegation with no evidence that there was a deliberate intention to deceive.
14. The LADO and senior manager should consider first whether further details are needed and where there is evidence or information that establishes that the allegation is false of unfounded.
15. All investigations should be investigated as a priority to avoid any delay. The LADO should monitor and record the progress of each case either fortnightly or monthly, depending on its complexity.

What happened

16. Mrs C is the manager of a nursery.
17. In September 2019, Mrs C contacted the Council’s LADO. The LADO recorded that Mrs C told the LADO that a child, who had a fascination for locks, had gained access to an unlocked office and locked themselves inside. Because the key was locked in the office with the child and there was no spare key on site, the fire service was called to free the child.
18. Records show the LADO asked Mrs who was responsible for supervision at the time of the incident. Mrs C said that she was the manager and there were two other members of staff on duty at the time. Mrs C told the LADO that she did not feel that it needed to be investigated and that she had only contacted the LADO because Ofsted had told her to.
19. The LADO told Mrs C that the matter would need to be investigated by a senior member of staff at the school, and that the investigation would need to focus on the supervision of the child and that this would include Mrs C’s role.
20. Mrs C provided the LADO with the contact details of the schools Committee Chair. I shall refer to the Committee Chair as Ms D.
21. The LADO contacted Ms D and explained that she would need to carry out an investigation into the incident. The LADO told Ms D that the matter would be substantiated because a child had been unsupervised and allowed to lock himself in a room and had therefore been placed at risk of harm.
22. The LADO recorded that the school’s investigation would need to focus on who was responsible for supervision at the time. Ms D confirmed that Mrs C was responsible as she was the manager of the school.
23. The LADO explained that substantiated complaints are held on file for 10 years and would need to be referred to in references.
24. The LADO subsequently told Ms D that what has been substantiated was that there was a serious safeguarding incident and that Mrs C, and two others were responsible for safeguarding the children and were present.
25. Records show the LADO also contacted Ofsted, who agreed the incident could have been prevented and that measures needed to be put in place to prevent it happening again.
26. In October, Ms D completed her investigation into the incident. She said she had interviewed the members of staff working at the time and interviewed the site manager.
27. Ms D found that it was not known to any of the staff at the school that the door could be opened by a child and locked from the inside, and that no risk assessments completed highlighted this risk. Because this risk had not been identified the procedure was that the door would be closed, rather than locked. Ms D said this was the procedure followed by staff on the day of the incident.
28. Ms D said the staff had been supervising the children, but sometimes in life often something unforeseen and unpredictable happens. Her investigation concluded that the staff had not been negligent and therefore she would not be submitting a referral of an allegation.
29. Ms D said the school had implemented measures to ensure that a similar incident could not happen again, and that Ofsted have since visited the school and are satisfied with these measures.
30. The LADO consulted with the LADO manager about the schools investigation. The LADO said the school staff were aware of the child’s fascination with locks, but that he had been allowed to lock himself in a room.
31. The LADO said that the fact that procedures have since been changed is an acknowledgement of risk. The LADO believed that there is therefore some accountability on the staff working that day.
32. Records show communications between the LADO and Ms D continued during November, and that Ms C subsequently contacted the LADO Manager in December and asked her to review the case.
33. The LADO Manager told Ms D that a child locked himself in an office and was therefore placed at risk of harm, this was a fact and therefore the only outcome could be that this element of the outcome would be substantiated. The school’s investigation therefore should have focused on how this happened.
34. The LADO manager apologised for the delays progressing the LADO investigation and with some correspondence not being answered, both caused by the LADO having a period of sick leave.
35. The LADO investigation was subsequently concluded. The LADO recorded that the allegation was substantiated. However, it had been agreed by the LADO manager that the allegation would not be included on Mrs C’s personnel records or in any reference request.

Analysis

36. After an incident, a Designated Safeguarding Lead would ordinarily carry out initial enquiries and contact the LADO.
37. In this case, as Mrs C was the manager of the school and because it was her that contacted the Council, the LADO asked for the contract details of someone more senior, who they subsequently held a discussion with. This person was the School Chair, Ms D.
38. The LADO told Ms D that the threshold of harm and the threshold to substantiate the allegation had been met, the LADO explained how she had reached this conclusion and that the school’s investigation would need to focus on the child’s supervision.
39. The school’s investigation concluded that Mrs C and others were not responsible. However, The LADO disagreed, concluding that the incident happened due to a lack of supervision, and therefore had to be substantiated, a decision which was subsequently reviewed and supported by the LADO manager.
40. In response to the Ombudsman’s enquiries, the LADO manager has elaborated on their conclusion that the threshold to substantiate had been met. They say it was evident and clear by the nature of the referral, and the need for Ofsted to question if the safeguarding concerns had been raised with the LADO.
41. The Council said it had the view that there was a significant gap in the school’s knowledge regarding the Safeguarding Children Procedures, and it had offered to provide support regarding this including a meeting with Mrs C.
42. Mrs C says the LADO was initially at fault because she did not speak to the Designated Safeguarding Lead and did not hold a strategy meeting.
43. However, I do not agree. In the circumstances I do not consider it to be unreasonable for the LADO to contact someone more senior than Mrs C.
44. I also do not agree that there was a requirement for the LADO to hold a strategy meeting. This is because they had already concluded that the incident had met the criteria for an allegation.
45. Mrs C says the incident did not meet the threshold to be considered an allegation and did not meet the threshold to be substantiated. Mrs C says the LADO failed to follow its procedures and went beyond its remit when dealing with the school and when reaching its conclusions.
46. It is part of the LADO’s role to provide advice to employers, this includes advice regarding the scope of their investigation. LADO’s are also entitled to question key facts in a case, such as who is responsible for the supervision of a child.
47. It is also one of the LADO’s role to ensure an appropriate outcome is reached. I therefore consider that the LADO was entitled to disagree with the school’s investigation and reach a different conclusion, based on the facts of the case.
48. For these reasons I am satisfied that the LADO managed the oversight of the investigation appropriately and in accordance with Council procedures.
49. I am also satisfied that the LADO had sufficient information to reach its conclusion that the threshold of harm had been met and that the allegation should be substantiated.
50. I am satisfied that the LADO made the decision to substantiate with oversight of the LADO manager and has fully explained their reasons for reaching their decisions.
51. Mrs C strongly disagrees with the LADO’s conclusions. However, the Ombudsman cannot question the merits of a decision, and particularly when that decision was reached without evidence of fault.
52. Mrs C also complained about the Council’s communications with her and the school during the process.
53. I note that the Council apologised to the school for its delays in finalising its decision. I also note that in response to Mrs C’s complaint about the matter the Council acknowledged its role in the delays and apologised to Mrs C.
54. Having considered this point, I am satisfied that the Council has acknowledged that there were issues with its communications and offered an apology for this. I consider this to be a suitable remedy.

Back to top

Final decision

55. I have concluded my investigation on the basis that, whilst there was some fault in how the Council communicated with Mrs C, it has provided a suitable remedy for the injustice this caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman