Summary: There was no fault in how the Council dealt with allegations about Mr X while he was employed as a teacher. Its LADO provided appropriate oversight of the case. Much of the injustice he believes he suffered arose from the actions of his then-employer, a school, which is outside our jurisdiction. He has now taken the school to the Employment Tribunal for unfair dismissal, which is a more suitable avenue to pursue his complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X was a schoolteacher about whom allegations were made. He complains about how the Council dealt with those allegations – and, in particular, its handling of a meeting.
2. Specifically, Mr X complains that:
• He was not given a meaningful opportunity to present his case, to see the evidence against him, or to challenge factual inaccuracies before a conclusion was drawn.
• He did not know the Council’s meeting was taking place until two months after.
• The meeting was attended by the person making the allegations, along with a group of professionals who had never met Mr X. The attendees from Mr X’s employer had been the subject of grievances by Mr X and therefore were biased against him.
• The Council failed to provide proper oversight of the meeting. It allowed inaccurate information to be shared without verifying it. And, in denying Mr X a chance to challenge the evidence, it breached principles of natural justice.
• He was denied the minutes of the meeting.
• He was not sent the outcome of the meeting for two months, and it was not made clear how the findings on the allegations had been reached.
• Mr X was then dismissed from his job.
3. Mr X says he now cannot find work as a teacher. He wants an apology from the Council, and a reconsideration of his case.
4. Since complaining to us, Mr X has lodged an unfair dismissal claim with the Employment Tribunal against his then-employer. Part of his claim concerns the employer’s investigation into the allegations, and their conduct in the Council’s meeting.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

6. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
7. We cannot investigate most complaints about what happens in schools. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 5(2), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant policy and guidance.
9. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Policy and guidance

Statutory government guidance: ‘Working together to safeguard children’ (2023)

10. Every council should have an officer, or team of officers, to manage and oversee allegations against people who work with children. These officers are routinely referred to as local authority designated officers (LADOs).
11. LADOs provide advice and guidance to employers and voluntary organisations on dealing with allegations against employees or volunteers. They should ensure information is shared effectively between relevant agencies. They should also monitor the progress of cases and should ensure cases are dealt with consistently, fairly and without delay.

Statutory government guidance: ‘Keeping children safe in education’ (2023)

12. When an allegation is made against a member of staff in a school, and enquiries are needed to decide how to deal with it, the Council’s LADO will discuss with the school how and by whom the investigation will be undertaken. The LADO will provide advice and guidance to the school on how to consider the allegation.
13. The role of the LADO is not to investigate the allegation, but to ensure that an appropriate investigation is carried out, whether that is by the Police, local authority children’s social care, the school or college, or a combination of these.
14. Employers have a duty of care to their employees. They should inform the individual as soon as possible, explaining the likely course of action, guided by the LADO, and the Police where necessary.
15. There are set definitions that should be used when schools and colleges determine the outcome of an allegation (including, among others, ‘substantiated’ and ‘unsubstantiated).

Derby and Derbyshire Safeguarding Children Partnership procedures: Allegations Against Staff, Carers and Volunteers

16. Employers should ensure they have clear policies in place setting out the process (including timescales) for investigation of allegations and for the support which is available to people against whom allegations have been made.
17. Regulatory bodies (such as Ofsted) must be informed of any allegations made against members of staff who work in specific sectors. It is the responsibility of the employer to make the appropriate referrals.
18. The responsibility of conducting further investigation into allegations, should such an investigation be needed, is that of the employer. They should seek a written account from the accused person outlining their perspective of events leading to the allegation. If the individual wishes, this account may be shared at the strategy meeting.
19. The employer should not ask the employee any questions that will interfere with any criminal investigation until it has been agreed by the LADO and the Police. Although it is extremely important that the employer provides the subject with as much information as possible, where a strategy discussion is needed, or the Police need to be involved, the employer should not share information with the subject until it has been agreed exactly what can be disclosed.
20. If an employer has conducted an investigation into allegations, they should determine the outcome using the set definitions in the statutory guidance and should communicate the outcome of the investigation to the employee and the LADO.
21. The decision regarding any disciplinary action is the sole responsibility of the employer. They will be accountable for any such decision, which is subject to the usual right of appeal under employment law.
22. If someone disputes the outcome of an investigation, their right of challenge will ordinarily be with the employer through disciplinary or grievance procedures. Employers, by agreeing actions with the LADO in a strategy meeting, accept responsibility for these decisions and must be able to justify them to an employee.
23. Individuals may apply for access to their records under the Data Protection Act 2018. Such applications will be considered by the Council and relevant documents, appropriately redacted, will be shared.

What happened

24. In late April 2024, the Council received a referral from Mr X’s employer about an allegation against him. He was unaware of the referral. The employer said this was because of advice from the Police.
25. The Council made attempts to discuss the referral with the Police. When these attempts were unsuccessful, the Council decided the threshold was met to hold a meeting to consider the allegation.
26. In mid-May, prior to the meeting, the Council asked Mr X’s employer if he had written a submission statement for the meeting.
27. The Police also provided the Council with a summary of their interview with Mr X ahead of the meeting.
28. In late May, the Council held an allegation management meeting. The record of the meeting shows:
• The LADO reminded everyone that the meeting was for professionals only. The minutes were not shared with LADO subjects.
• The allegation against Mr X was described to the attendees of the meeting. The person making the allegation was not present.
• Mr X did not make a submission statement for the LADO meeting. His employer said it was told, by the Police, not to discuss details with Mr X while the Police investigation was ongoing.
• However, Mr X gave a statement to the Police. The Police discussed this statement in the meeting.
• Attendees of meeting unanimously agreed that the allegation was substantiated.
• The LADO decided no further meeting was needed, although Mr X’s employer was to share the outcome of its HR investigation when it was completed.
29. The Council noted that Mr X’s employer was to inform him of the outcome of the meeting, and that it would do so in early June after half-term. The Council provided an outcome letter to the employer and said it could be shared with Mr X.
30. After Mr X complained to the Ombudsman, the Council told us that the parties in attendance at allegation management meetings (such as the Police and the employer) are responsible for providing accurate information at the meeting. It said the LADO process and outcome is reliant upon the information gathered and supplied by the professionals involved.
31. The Council said that all those in attendance at a meeting are bound by their own professional standards and regulatory requirements regarding information-sharing. It said that, while the LADO may ask exploratory and clarification questions, is not their role to directly verify the information shared.
32. Finally, the Council told us that, if Mr X feels there were factual inaccuracies presented during the LADO meeting, he should take this up with the agencies he thinks were responsible. If this results in new information coming to light and a significant change in the evidence, he can contact the LADO service again and ask it to consider this new information.
33. Mr X tells us that he is currently going through an employment tribunal against his employer.

My findings

34. While the actions of a council’s LADO do generally fall within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, it is important to separate out the LADO’s responsibilities from an employer’s. Actions taken by an employer under its HR procedures are not within my remit.
35. Under the relevant guidance and regional procedures, the responsibilities for gaining Mr X’s views, communicating with him about the meeting, conducting the investigation in a fair and unbiased way and taking disciplinary action were that of his then-employer, a school. I cannot comment on how these matters were dealt with by the school.
36. LADOs do, to some degree, have an oversight role – or, at the very least, an advisory role – when it comes to making sure allegations are dealt with fairly. And I see that the Council:
• reminded Mr X’s employer that he could provide a statement to the allegation management meeting;
• received Mr X’s statement from the Police and ensured the statement was discussed in the meeting; and
• provided an outcome letter to Mr X’s employer and asked that he be given this after the meeting.
37. I am satisfied that the Council’s actions in relation to Mr X’s case were in line with procedural requirements. Although Mr X claims there was a failure of oversight, I do not agree.
38. The Council was not responsible for information provided by other agencies. Although LADOs provide advice and guidance – which is what happened here – they cannot reasonably be expected to independently verify every piece of information provided during a meeting.
39. The Council says Mr X should challenge any information he believes to be inaccurate with the organisation which provided it. If it turns out any professional provided inaccurate information to the allegation management meeting which was important in the decision-making of those present, he can bring this to the LADO’s attention.
40. This is a fair way forward. Mr X is currently taking his (now ex-) employer to the Employment Tribunal because he is unhappy with how it handled the termination of his employment. If the outcome of the Tribunal is in Mr X’s favour, he can ask that the LADO look at any new evidence and consider whether further action should be taken.
41. Until then, the Council has met its statutory and procedural duties and need take no further action on Mr X’s case.

Back to top

Decision

42. The Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman