Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of a referral about him to its Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO). The was no fault in the Council’s handling of this case or Mr X’s subsequent complaints.

The complaint

1. Mr X and his representative, Dr Y, complain about the Council’s handling of a referral made about Mr X to the Council’s Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO). They complain:
1. the LADO failed to follow procedures when dealing with the consideration of the referral by providing false or fabricated information to other parties and their managers allowed this to happen;
2. the LADO made unlawful redactions to material disclosed to Mr X in an attempt to cover up their wrongdoing, and;
3. the Council failed to deal with Mr X’s complaints with the appropriate level of scrutiny and seriousness.
2. Mr X and Dr Y say the Council’s actions have caused significant distress and uncertainty for Mr X and his family.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

3. I have excluded point b above from my investigation. I have explained to Mr X and Dr Y that we cannot investigate their concerns about the way in which the Council has processed Mr X’s subject access requests for personal data under the Data Protection Act 2018.
4. These are matters which fall under the remit of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). I understand Mr X has already approached the ICO with his concerns about the Council in this respect.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
6. 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 the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
7. 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

8. I have spoken to Mr X and Dr Y. I have considered the information they have provided in support of Mr X’s complaint.
9. I have considered the information the Council has provided in response to my enquiries, which includes confidential information that I am unable to share with Mr X and Dr Y.
10. Mr X, Dr Y and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision. Mr X and Dr Y continue to strongly object to my findings and my overall approach to their complaints.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legislation and guidance

11. Working Together to Safeguard Children August 2018 says council should have clear policies for dealing with allegations against people who work with children.
12. 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.
13. Government guidance says councils should 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).
14. The Council’s local safeguarding procedures state the LADO’s responsibilities are to:

• receive notifications of allegations and to be involved in the management and oversight of individual cases;
• provide advice and guidance to employers and voluntary organisations and agencies;
• liaise with the police and other agencies;
• monitor the progress of cases to ensure that they are dealt with as quickly as possible consistent with a thorough and fair process;
• provide advice and guidance to employers in relation to making referrals to the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) and regulatory bodies such as Ofsted, the General Medical Council (GMC) etc. (West Yorkshire Consortium Inter Agency Safeguarding and Child Protection Procedures – Allegations Against Persons who Work with Children)

15. The LADO and any agencies/organisations involved with the allegation will need to ensure that the relevant people are invited to an Allegations Management Meeting (AMM) and any follow up meetings to ensure that the full scope of the enquiry can be effectively addressed.
16. The Allegations Management Meeting will be chaired by the LADO (or their nominated representative). There are five possible outcomes of allegation investigations:

• Substantiated: there is sufficient evidence to prove the allegation;
• Malicious: there is sufficient evidence to disprove the allegation and there has been a deliberate act to deceive;
• False: there is sufficient evidence to disprove the allegation;
• Unsubstantiated: this is not the same as a false allegation. It means that there is insufficient evidence to either prove or disprove the allegation; the term therefore does not imply guilt or innocence;
• Unfounded: to reflect cases where there is no evidence or proper basis which supports the allegation being made.

17. The police should inform the LADO when a criminal investigation and any subsequent trial are complete, or if it is decided to close an investigation without charge, or not to prosecute after the person has been charged.
18. In all circumstances the LADO should discuss with the employer what further action is needed. The information provided by the police and/or Children's Social Care Services should inform that decision.

Background

19. This chronology sets out key events and does not cover everything that has happened.
20. Mr X has worked as a teacher for a number of years. In November 2019, the Council received a referral from the police that it was investigating a historic allegation of sexual abuse made about Mr X.
21. This referral was picked up by LADO Z, one of three LADOs that work for the Council. The LADO Z undertook some initial enquiries following the referral, including establishing where Mr X was currently working.
22. The police arrested Mr X in December 2019. LADO Z convened the first AMM shortly afterwards and invited key professionals, including Mr X’s current and previous employers. The AMM concluded with a decision to undertake further investigations into Mr X’s work history while the police continued its investigation. Mr X was suspended from his existing role.
23. In January 2020, a further AMM meeting was held to discuss what progress had been made and whether any further actions were necessary. The police investigation was still open at this stage and Mr X remained suspended from work. Shortly after the second AMM, the police notified LADO Z it had closed its investigation into the allegations against Mr X and would be taking no further action.
24. The Council held a third AMM in early February 2020 to discuss the outcome of the police investigation and progress with the remaining enquiries into Mr X’s work history. Mr X’s current employer explained that it could not progress its disciplinary investigation until the police returned a previous employer’s personnel file for Mr X. A further AMM was scheduled for early March 2020. Mr X was dismissed from his current employment shortly after this.
25. The March 2020 AMM did not take place and was reconvened for early May 2020 when the police returned Mr X’s personnel file to his previous employer. LADO Z had also received key information from Mr X and his union representative about his previous employment. The AMM concluded the outcome of the Council’s allegation investigations was unsubstantiated. LADO Z notified Mr X of this outcome following the AMM.

Mr X’s complaints

26. Shortly after the AMM decision, Mr X and his union representative contacted LADO Z to ask the identity of the person who made the allegations against him to the police. Mr X believed his former employer had made the allegations against him in an attempt to ruin his career. LADO Z responded to Mr X’s concerns and signposted him to the appropriate organisation to raise any concerns he had about his former employer.
27. Mr X made a series of Subject Access Requests to the Council for his personal data during the remainder of 2020 and early 2021. I have limited information from the Council, Mr X and Dr Y about this as it does not form part of my investigation.
28. On 5 July 2021, Dr Y made a stage one complaint on behalf of Mr X about the conduct of LADO Z and another Council Officer involved in the allegations investigation. This complaint was initially allocated to LADO Z’s line manager for investigation and response.
29. The Council reallocated its investigation into Mr X’s stage one complaint to another manager. The Council told Mr X it had done this to avoid any perception of partiality highlighted by Mr X and Dr Y.
30. At the end of August 2021, Mr X provided the Council with details of his full complaint about the Council’s handling. On 16 September 2021, the Council’s stage one complaint investigator met with Mr X and Dr Y to discuss Mr X’s complaints.
31. The Council sent its stage one complaint response to Mr X on 21 October 2021. The Council did not uphold any of the seven heads of complaint it had discussed with Mr X and Dr Y in September 2021. This included concerns about LADO Z’s handling and Mr X’s allegation that LADO Z and another Council Officer had acted unprofessionally and with criminal intent. The stage one complaint Investigator confirmed they had examined the entire unredacted case file and found no evidence of wrongdoing by LADO Z or the other Council Officer.
32. Mr X remained dissatisfied and contacted the Council to indicate his wish to escalate his complaint to stage two a week later. The Council agreed to place its stage two complaint investigation on hold while the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) completed its investigation into Mr X’s complaints about the Council’s handling of his subject access requests.
33. On 5 April 2022, the Council appointed a stage two complaint investigator following Mr X’s request to restart his complaint. Mr X and Dr Y provided their concerns about the stage one complaint response on 13 April 2022.
34. The Council’s stage two investigator was another senior manager who had had no prior involvement with Mr X’s case, given his continued concerns about impartiality. On 29 April 2022, they provided their stage two complaint response to Mr X. They confirmed they had examined the entire unredacted case file and they did not uphold any of Mr X’s continued complaints. The stage two investigator also confirmed that the stage one complaint investigation had been thorough and completed in line with Council procedures.
35. Both the stage one and stage two complaint responses explained the Council had no remit or say over the information submitted by other professionals at AMMs.
36. Mr X brought his complaints to us shortly after the Council’s stage two complaint response.

Analysis

37. Mr X and Dr Y complain the Council, and in particular LADO Z, failed to follow procedures and did not consider whether false or fabricated information had been provided about Mr X.
38. This appears to centre on Mr X and Dr Y’s initial belief that Mr X’s former employer was the source of the allegation made about Mr X to the police. The Council’s records show LADO Z asked the police directly about this. Mr X and Dr Y have since alleged that LADO Z may be the source of the allegation.
39. Mr X and Dr Y have provided me with evidence they obtained directly from the police. This appears to indicate the source of the original police allegation about Mr X was an unrelated third party, not LADO Z or Mr X’s previous employer.
40. I have also seen from the Council’s unredacted case records that there is no evidence to show the source of the police allegation against Mr X was either LADO Z or Mr X’s previous employer.
41. Mr X’s other complaint related to a concern that the Council had failed to act promptly on the police’s first referral to it about this issue in October 2019. The Council’s stage one and two complaint investigations have found no record of an earlier LADO referral from the police about this matter. I too have seen nothing to show the Council received any information about this allegation prior to early November 2019.
42. Another issue Mr X and Dr Y have raised is their view that LADO Z should have done more to scrutinize, or been aware that, Mr X’s former employer had provided inaccurate information about him at the first AMM (in December 2019).
43. I agree with the Council’s complaint responses in respect of this point. The Council was entitled to approach AMMs with a view that all professional contributors to the meetings were acting in good faith and provided accurate information to the best of their knowledge. The Council rightly pointed out to Mr X and Dr Y that further AMMs, examination of employee records and evidence from Mr X (and his union representatives) was subsequently used to appropriately challenge the accuracy of information provided at the first AMM.
44. The process had essentially worked as it should. The true picture of what had happened at Mr X’s previous roles had been established by the point the AMMs were concluded.
45. Mr X and Dr Y complain the Council failed to deal with their complaints with appropriate scrutiny or seriousness. Mr X and Dr Y have explained they feel the Council should have involved its Legal Team when responding to Mr X’s complaint, given the seriousness of the issues being raised.
46. It is a matter of judgement for the Council to decide whether it required the help of its Legal Team in any case. The Council’s decision not to do so in Mr X’s case, is not evidence of fault.
47. I do not agree with Mr X and Dr Y’s view the Council did not take their concerns seriously for a number of reasons. Firstly, the Council took considerably longer to complete its investigations into Mr X’s complaints than its published timescales; 15 working days for stage one and 28 days for stage two. While this would normally be cause for criticism, it appears the Council took longer to complete its process to accommodate Mr X’s requests, particularly at stage two when the Council placed the process on hold so that Mr X could receive the outcome of his ICO complaints.
48. Secondly, the Council allocated investigation of complaints at both stages to senior managers who had had no prior involvement in his case. There was no requirement to do this within the Council’s complaint procedure. It did so to provide Mr X with reassurance that its complaint investigations were conducted independently of the team involved.
49. Both stages of the complaint process appear to have been robust and thorough. The responders have both sought to clearly explain and respond to those issues within their remit. Their responses were detailed and sought to address all the relevant points made, while recognising the seriousness of Mr X’s concerns and the impact on his career.
50. Ultimately, there is nothing more I could achieve here by revisiting Mr X’s concerns. I have completed an independent review of the unredacted case records from the Council and concur with the findings of the two complaint investigations. I have also carefully considered the information Mr X and Dr Y have provided. There is no evidence of the inappropriate actions Mr X and Dr Y allege against LADO Z or any other Council Officer. I hope my independent review of the Council’s case records and handling has provided Mr X with some reassurance, albeit I understand this will not alleviate the negative impact this entire process has had on him and his family.

Back to top

Final decision

51. I have completed my investigation and do not uphold Mr X and Dr Y’s complaints.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman