Summary: Miss X complains the Council appointed LADO failed to follow the correct process and made decisions regarding her case without allowing her to have her say or gathering all the necessary evidence. She also complained there was a significant delay in responding to her concerns and the Council failed to adequately address her complaint about the LADO’s behaviour. She said this matter caused her distress. There was no fault in the Council appointed LADO’s actions or the Council’s complaint handling.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the LADO failed to follow the correct process and did not allow her the opportunity to provide her views when it received a safeguarding referral regarding her professional conduct.
2. Miss X also complained the Council failed to fully address her complaint about this and significantly delayed responding to her.
3. Miss X said this caused her distress and inconvenience.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 an organisation’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)
5. 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

6. I made enquiries of the Council and considered the information it provided. This included Miss X’s complaint letters and the Council’s chronology of the complaint.
7. I wrote to Miss X and the Council with the draft decision. I did not receive comments from either party.

Back to top

What I found

Law

8. Working Together to Safeguard Children August 2018 says local authorities should have clear policies for dealing with allegations against people who work with children.
9. An allegation may relate to a person who works with children who has behaved in a way that put them at risk of harm or which indicates they may not be suitable to work with children.
10. Local authorities should have a designated officer (LADO) who is involved in the management and oversight of allegations against people who work with children.
11. The LADO’s responsibilities are to:
• provide advice and guidance to employers in relation to adult’s suitability to remain in post over the course of the investigation;
• quality assure any safeguarding investigations undertaken;
• advise the employer of the person who are subject of the safeguarding LADO process where to seek support from; and
• keep records of all advice given, actions taken and decisions made
12. The LADO does not:
• undertake any investigation;
• communicate directly with the person who is the subject of the allegation; or
• provide advice and support to the person subject of the allegation

Responding to allegations

13. All organisations which provide services to children, should operate a procedure for handling allegations which is consistent with the guidance set out in Working Together to Safeguard Children 2018.
14. Where such allegations are made, consideration must be given to:

• an internal investigation by the employer if there is not a criminal investigation;
• consideration by an employer of disciplinary action in respect of the individual.

15. The LADO will discuss the matter with the employer and where necessary obtain further details of the allegation and the circumstances in which it was made.
16. It is the employer’s responsibility to inform the person subject of the referral that there was a consultation with the LADO.
17. A Multi-Agency LADO discussion with the Police and/or the Children’s Advice and Duty Service (CADS) should be undertaken to ensure that any live safeguarding or investigative procedures are implemented.
18. The LADO should discuss the next steps with the employer’s senior manager about what further investigations are necessary, who will do this investigation and how this will be fed back to the safeguarding LADO process. The LADO’s role is not to investigate the allegation, but to ensure that an appropriate investigation is carried out.
19. The LADO’s primary responsibility is the safeguarding of children and this will be the only issue a LADO will take in to consideration when/how the person subject of the allegation is informed. When it is agreed, it is the employer’s responsibility to inform the person subject of the allegation that a safeguarding LADO referral has been made.
20. The purpose of the Multi-Agency LADO Meeting is to share information relevant to the allegation and to plan any necessary investigations. The meeting will be chaired by the LADO.

The Multi-Agency LADO Meeting will need to:

• share all relevant information about the person who is the subject of the allegation and about the alleged child victim;
• plan the investigation/enquiries and set timescales for tasks to be undertaken;
• consider whether the circumstances suggest the person who is subject to the allegation should be suspended from contact with children, to inform the employers decision about this issue
• ensure that there is consideration to the employer’s responsibility to the person who is the subject of the allegation to be kept informed and supported as part of the employer’s duty of care;

21. A final Multi-Agency LADO meeting will be held and a decision on the outcome of the allegation will be made, and, where appropriate, agree an action plan for future practice based on lessons learnt.
22. The record of the LADO meeting is not verbatim, it is a summary of the discussion and allows for clear decisions and actions to be recorded. It is the employer’s responsibility to share the Safeguarding LADO Process outcome with their employee who had been subject of the LADO referral.
23. Statutory guidance Keeping Children Safe in Education 2021 states that unless allegations are proven false, unsubstantiated or malicious the outcome of a safeguarding investigation should be made clear when providing references to prospective employers.

Council corporate complaints

24. The Council tries to resolve corporate complaints within specific timescales:
• Stage 1 - complaints should be acknowledged within 5 working days and response provided within 20 working days.
• Stage 2 - stage 2 complaints should be completed within 25 working days. This may be extended to a maximum of 65 working days for particularly complex cases.

What happened

25. Miss X began working in a teaching capacity at School A in January 2020.
26. In September 2020, Miss X was involved in an incident where a young child was escorted from a classroom into a car.
27. The LADO received a referral from School A’s Safeguarding nurse regarding the incident the following month.
28. In early October 2020, the LADO held a meeting with professionals from School A, the Police and the safeguarding nurse to discuss what had happened. School A began an internal investigation, during which it spoke to Miss X about what had happened.
29. Following the investigation, the LADO held a final multi-disciplinary meeting. School A found that the concerns were substantiated and whilst Miss X had not intended to hurt the child, the child had experienced harm due to her actions. The LADO recorded this as a substantiated allegation.
30. Miss X continued to work at School A following the incident.
31. Miss X complained to the Council on 23 February 2021. Miss X was unhappy with the description of her actions in the referral and felt she was not given the opportunity to voice her views. She said there were other witness statements the LADO had not considered. She said she wanted the reference to the incident removed from future references.
32. On 24 March 2021 the Council replied at Stage 1 of the corporate complaints process. The Council explained it was Miss X’s employer who had conducted and completed the investigation. The Council also confirmed that the inclusion of the outcome in Miss X’s future references was required by statutory guidance. The Council said the LADO could review the outcome upon receipt of new information.
33. Miss X escalated the complaint to Stage 2 on 23 May 2021 as she was not satisfied with the Council’s response.
34. On 30 June 2021 the Council consulted with the safeguarding department and wrote to Miss X. The Council again explained that the LADO did not conduct the investigation and only considered whether the concerns raised were substantiated. They confirmed the LADO had not received further information regarding the referral and therefore the outcome remained the same.
35. Miss X referred her complaint to the Ombudsman as she remained unhappy.

Findings

36. Miss X complained the LADO did not follow the correct process and failed to give her the opportunity to give her views on what happened. She also complained the LADO did not fully consider all witness statements. The LADO was not responsible for conducting the investigation, this was School A’s role. As required by statutory guidance, the LADO chaired a meeting with School A and oversaw the investigation. Following the outcome of the investigation, the LADO agreed the concerns were substantiated. This decision was supported by all professionals in attendance at the meeting. There is no evidence of fault in the LADO’s actions. It is open to Miss X to follow up any concerns she has with the investigation with her employer.
37. Miss X also complained the Council delayed responding to her complaint. The Council responded to Miss X’s Stage 1 complaint within the required timescales but took 28 working days to respond Miss X’s Stage 2 complaint. Whilst this is slightly over the desired 25 working days cited in the Council’s corporate complaints policy, this is still within the required timescales. There is no fault in the Council’s complaint handling.

Final decision

38. There was no fault with the Council’s actions. I have completed the investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman