Summary: We did not find fault with the actions of the Local Authority Designated Officer in relation to their role about the allegations made against Mr X. We did find fault with the Council delaying outside its complaint timescales by nearly eleven months. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and provide a symbolic financial gesture for the severe and prolonged uncertainty caused to Mr X by its fault.

The complaint

1. Miss Z complained the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) failed to follow the correct process while completing its investigation resulting in an incorrect determination about Mr X’s suitability to work with children.
2. Miss Z says this decision has impacted on Mr X’s ability to obtain employment and has asked the Council to reconsider its decision considering additional evidence.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may recommend a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. We cannot investigate most complaints about what happens in schools. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 5(2), as amended)
6. 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(1), as amended)
7. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Miss Z and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Miss Z and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision before I made a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Rules and regulations

Statutory guidance

10. The Statutory government guidance: ‘Working together to safeguard children’ (2023) states:
• 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).
• 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.
11. The Statutory government guidance for schools: Keeping children safe in education (2023) states:
• 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 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.
• That it is important that policies and procedures make clear who allegations should be reported to and that a “case manager” will lead any investigation; this will be either the headteacher or principal or the chair of governors.
• 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.
12. The definitions that should be used when schools and colleges determine the outcome of an allegation are:
• Substantiated – there is sufficient identifiable evidence to prove the allegation.
• Malicious – There is clear evidence to prove there has been a deliberate act to deceive or harm the person against whom the allegation was made.
• False – There is sufficient evidence to disprove the allegation.
• Unsubstantiated – there is insufficient evidence to prove or disprove the allegation. The term, therefore, does not imply guilt or innocence.
• Unfounded – there is no evidence or proper basis which supports the allegation being made.
13. The guidance states that in certain circumstances an allegation may require an independent investigation which can be completed by the local authority, rather than the school. The National LADO Network states the LADO can recommend a referral and chair the strategy meeting in cases where the allegation requires investigation by police and/or social care.

Wiltshire Council guidance and policy

14. Wiltshire Council outlines the LADO is the key point of contact for managing allegations against people working with children. The Council outlines the LADO is involved in:
• Allegation management – it is responsible for overseeing all allegations made against adults working with children, ensuring a fair and thorough investigation process.
• Safeguarding – ensuring that allegations are taken seriously, and that appropriate actions are taken to address any concerns.
• Collaboration – works closely with other professionals and agencies involved in safeguarding children, ensuring a coordinated and effective response to allegations.
• Transparency and Accountability - ensures that the process for managing allegations is transparent and accountable, with clear procedures for informing individuals of the outcome and any actions taken.
15. The Council says the LADO will review an initial allegation and once reviewed, they may ask for an Initial Evaluation Meeting (IEM) to be held. If it is agreed at the IEM the harm test threshold has been met subsequent Multi-Agency Allegation Management Meetings (MAMM's) will take place.
16. The MAMMs will ultimately decide the outcome agreed between all agencies involved in the investigation. The Council outlines the possible outcomes as detailed by the Statutory government guidance for schools: Keeping children safe in education (2023). The Council confirms the outcome is decided on the civil threshold of ‘balance of probability’.
17. As part of this process, the LADO will provide advice and guidance to employers and others concerned, liaise with relevant organisations to monitor the progress of investigations, chair the MAMMs and ensure referrals are made to the appropriate regulatory bodies as necessary.
18. The Council confirms the LADO does not itself conduct investigations, but does provide oversight of investigations, does not have direct communication with the subject of the allegation and does not provide legal or HR advice to employers about suspensions or dismissals.

The Council’s Complaints Policy

19. The Council operates a two-stage complaints process. At stage one, the Council says it aims to provide a response within 10 working days with a possible extension of a further 10 working days.
20. If a person is dissatisfied with the stage one response they can request consideration at stage two. At stage two, the Council says it will provide a response within 20 working days, with a possible extension of 20 further working days.
21. The Council should provide the complainant with reasons why they are engaging the extension at both stage one and stage two.

What happened

22. In September 2022, allegations were made against Mr X. Mr X’s school submitted a LADO referral and safeguarding risk assessment to the Council.
23. The LADO discussed matters with the school’s head teacher and the chair of governors. The LADO decided to hold an Initial Evaluation Meeting given the number of low-level concerns raised to decide if the harm threshold was met.
24. During the Initial Evaluation Meeting, it was agreed that the chair of governors would conduct the investigation into Mr X. The LADO provided guidance to the school about the investigation and scheduled the first MAMM for December 2022 to review progress of the investigation.
25. From December 2022 to January 2024, the LADO held regular MAMMs. The LADO confirmed it was appropriate to await the outcome of the school’s disciplinary panel and formal investigation before making any decision.
26. In January 2024, Mr X’s school held the disciplinary panel hearing for Mr X. The school upheld one allegation as substantiated but did not uphold any of the other allegations. The disciplinary panel did not recommend any sanctions and outlined that Mr X could return to work under guidance and with support.
27. The LADO held a final MAMM at the start of February 2024. The LADO chaired the meeting with representatives from the relevant Council departments, school and the chair of governors attending. The final MAMM outlined:
• They needed to consider the amount of low-level concerns which, while individually did not meet the disciplinary actions threshold, could cause a cumulative impact alongside the one substantiated allegation.
• The LADO asked for details about the substantiated allegation which was provided.
• Discussions took place between all parties in attendance.
• The LADO provided guidance about the five potential outcomes to the allegations and said that based on the discussions only substantiated or unsubstantiated could apply. The LADO summarised that there is enough evidence the allegation happened meaning it would need to be classified as substantiated. All professionals agreed with this determination.
• The outcome would be that the harm threshold was met given the substantiated allegation and cumulative low-level concerns.
28. Following the final MAMM, Mr X’s school wrote to Mr X to advise off the outcome of the allegation management process. The school said:
• One allegation was substantiated. The school explained the disciplinary panel’s consideration of why this was substantiated.
• The MAMM was held to determine the outcome of the allegation management process and made the determination of substantiated and that the harm threshold had been met having taken account the outcome of the disciplinary panel.
29. Miss Z lodged a formal complaint with the Council. Miss Z said:
• The outcome of the MAMM was insufficient to provide an explanation about what information had been considered.
• She had concerns the LADO has decided the harm threshold had been met based purely on the disciplinary outcome. Miss Z said the disciplinary outcome letter was not fit for purpose.
• She wanted to know how the LADO made the decision that the threshold for harm was reached given the disciplinary panel recommended no disciplinary action against Mr X.
• There was doubt over the fairness of the investigation.
• The school has simply followed the LADO’s decision and not made their own. Miss Z questioned the cross-over between the LADO and school’s decision making when these are meant to be separate.
30. In January 2025, the Council issued a complaint response to Miss Z. The Council said:
• It apologised for the delayed response to Miss Z’s complaint.
• It conducted an eight-month long investigation into the allegations raised about Mr X. The outcome of this investigation was one substantiated allegation.
• The LADO said while the majority of the allegations against Mr X were not substantiated, the pattern of behaviour by Mr X was concerning and pointed to unprofessional behaviour.
• The LADO determination was based on the evidence available and balance of probabilities.
• The LADO drew on a range of evidence and while the disciplinary panel did not impose any formal sanctions, the concerns raised were still valid to the suitability assessment.
• The school and LADO have separate roles, with the LADO’s role being about risk in a safeguarding context.
• The LADO’s role is to assess suitability but the employer is responsible for determining what further steps to take once the LADO shared its findings with the school.
• It believed the determination regarding suitability was appropriate in this case.
31. In February 2025, Miss Z requested consideration of her complaint at stage two. The Council said it needed further information from Miss Z to substantiate why she wished to proceed to stage two.
32. Miss Z submitted a formal request for consideration at stage two in June 2025. Miss Z said:
• She wanted to know what the pattern of concerning behaviour identified by the LADO was and detailed examples of how such behaviours resulted in the harm threshold being met.
• All but one allegation was not substantiated in their entirety. Miss Z said the LADO’s terminology appears to suggest partially substantiated which is not correct and would lead to a detrimental determination by the LADO.
• The LADO was making its own determination about whether Mr X had behaved as alleged when noting there was a significant number of low level concerns within each allegation. This was despite the disciplinary panel not upholding all but one allegation. Miss Z said the LADO had overstepped its remit as it was not for the LADO to make a determination about whether allegations were substantiated but simply whether the substantiated allegations met the harm threshold.
• Concerns have been raised about the investigation completed by the chair of governors and it is not suitable for the LADO to rely on this investigation.
• She did not consider the LADO process was completed fairly and wanted the MAMM reconvened.
33. The Council provided its stage two complaint response in July 2025. The Council said:
• The outcome letter references each allegation individually and appropriately reflects if this was substantiated or unsubstantiated. The Council said it did not agree with Miss Z’s comments the LADO had taken an approach of partially substantiated.
• There is no evidence the LADO made a finding of substantiated on any of the allegations which were unsubstantiated and only made a finding on the one substantiated allegation.
• There is no evidence the LADO carried out an investigation and it simply assessed and oversaw the information available to it within its process.
• While Miss Z and Mr X may disagree, the LADO felt the substantiated allegation met the threshold of harm.
• The LADO process was separate to that of the schools and any concerns about the school would need to be raised with them. This included any concerns about the chair of governors and the school disciplinary process.
• It has found no maladministration in how the LADO handled the matter and directed Miss Z to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.

Analysis

34. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body, so cannot comment on the merits of judgements and decisions made by councils in the absence of fault in the process. It is not for me to reach a judgement on the allegations against Mr X. My focus is purely on whether the Council met procedural expectations. And I cannot substitute a council officer’s professional judgement with my own.
35. National guidance on how LADOs should handle allegations is not particularly prescriptive. It does, though, require councils to write their own procedures. What these procedures look like is a matter for each individual authority, provided they fit within the basic statutory framework set out in the guidance.

Initial Referral

36. Statutory guidance says that, if investigation of an allegation is needed, it should be carried out by the person’s employer, not the LADO. The LADO’s roles in such investigations is simply one of providing advice and guidance about how to complete an investigation and consider an allegation.
37. Following receipt of the referral from Mr X’s school, the LADO engaged with Mr X’s school and provided advice about how it may investigate the complaint. The LADO followed the Council’s process by completing a review and holding an Initial Evaluation Meeting. The LADO’s decision that a MAMM should take place following the school’s investigation is also within the Council’s process. The LADO followed the Council’s process, and I do not find fault.
38. How the school completed its investigation, and who it chose to complete the investigation, following input from the LADO is outside the remit of the Ombudsman.

Interim Period

39. The LADO chaired regular MAMMs to keep oversight of the school’s investigation, waiting on the outcome of the disciplinary hearing.
40. The LADO has followed the statutory guidance and the Council’s policy by monitoring the progress of the investigation and keeping in touch with relevant parties. There is no evidence the LADO became actively involved in the school’s investigation and no evidence of any cross-over of roles. I do not find fault with the Council.

Final MAMM

41. While the statutory guidance provides instructions for “when schools and colleges determine the outcome of an allegation”, it does not say that only a school or a college can be involved in making such a determination. It does not prohibit LADOs from taking a role in decision-making.
42. The Council’s policy says the MAMM will decide the outcome of an allegation agreed by all parties involved. While the LADO chairs the MAMM, this process does not appear to contravene the statutory guidance, provided the LADO does not investigate the allegation themselves.
43. As detailed above, there is no evidence the LADO completed an investigation itself. At the final MAMM the LADO contributed towards the deciding outcome of the allegation with the other attendees of the MAMM. The MAMM made the decision that the substantiated allegation met the harm threshold. This was a decision the MAMM was entitled to make and not one the Ombudsman can question since the correct process was followed.
44. Overall, the LADO acted within the remit set by the statutory guidance and the Council’s policy. I do not find fault.

Complaint handling

45. The Council took 329 total days to respond to Miss Z’s complaint at stage one. The Council did not tell Miss Z it needed the ten-day extension so this meant the Council delayed by about ten and a half months outside its complaint procedure in responding to Mr X’s complaint at stage one.
46. At stage two, the Council again did not engage the twenty-day extension allowed to it. This meant the Council took a week and a half outside its complaint timescales to respond to Miss Z’s complaint at stage two.
47. Overall, the Council delayed outside its complaint timescales by just short of eleven months. This was fault. The Council’s fault through its delays in complaint handling was prolonged and would have caused significant uncertainty to Mr X given the nature of his complaint impacting on his livelihood.

Back to top

Action

48. Within one month of the Ombudsman’s final decision the Council will:
• Provide an apology to Mr X and pay him £500 as a symbolic financial gesture for the significant uncertainty caused to him by its eleven-month delay in responding to his complaint, made through Miss Z, across stage one and stage two of its complaint process. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
49. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

50. There was fault leading to injustice. As the Council has agreed to my recommendations, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman