Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to assign a safeguarding case to a Local Authority Designated Officer he considered was not impartial or objective. Mr X also complained about actions the Local Authority Designated Officer took as part of the safeguarding investigation. The Council was not at fault in appointing the same Local Authority Designated Officer Mr X previously complained about. And there was no fault in the way the Local Authority Designated Officer oversaw the allegations management process.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council assigned a safeguarding case to the same Local Authority Designated Officer he previously had cause to complain about. Mr X therefore had concerns about the Local Authority Designated Officer’s impartiality and objectivity which he said the Council did not address. This affected his mental health.
2. Mr X also complained the Local Authority Designated Officer contacted athletics agencies as part of the investigation based on wrong information. And he said they invited one of his friends to a multi-agency meeting despite the organisation they represent being only for adults. This impacted his ability to earn money for his freelance work. He said the Council did not address this.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. As part of the investigation, I considered the complaint and the information Mr X provided.
6. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
7. Mr X and the Council now have an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I will consider their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Child protection

8. The Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) is a person responsible for managing and overseeing investigations into allegations that somebody who works with children has behaved in a way that may pose a risk to children.

The Council’s safeguarding and child protection policy and procedures - allegations against people who work with, care for or volunteer with children.

9. Government guidance, ‘Working Together to Safeguard Children’, requires local authorities to ensure allegations against people who work with children are not dealt with in isolation. Any action necessary to address corresponding welfare concerns in relation to the child or children involved should be taken without delay and in a coordinated manner.
10. Local authorities should have a LADO, or team of LADOs, to be involved in the management and oversight of allegations against people that work with children. Arrangements should be put in place to ensure that any allegations about those who work with children are passed to the LADO without delay.
11. Local authorities should put in place arrangements to provide advice and guidance to employers, voluntary organisations and agencies on how to deal with allegations against people who work with children. Local authorities should also ensure that there are appropriate arrangements in place to effectively liaise with the police and other agencies to monitor the progress of cases and ensure that they are dealt with as quickly as possible, consistent with a thorough and fair process.
12. It is important to be aware that LADOs do not carry out investigations into allegations.  Responsibility for the investigation remains with the employer and/or the police. The LADO can provide advice and, where necessary, co-ordinate the process.
13. The LADO will triage all reported concerns to decide if the threshold for allegations management has been met. 
14. Consideration should be given to the risk or potential risk to both the child/children directly affected by the issue and any other children who may also be at risk.
15. An Allegations Management Meeting will decide the next steps for managing the allegation. The meeting, chaired by the LADO, will include relevant personnel from Children’s Social Care, police, the employer/s and governing or regulatory bodies.
16. The Allegations Management Meeting should:

• consider the current allegation in the context of any previous allegations or concerns.
• decide whether there should be a police investigation.
• consider whether any parallel internal investigation can start and agree protocols for sharing information.
• plan enquiries if needed, assign tasks and set timescales.
• consider what support should be provided to all children who may be affected.
• consider what support should be provided to the member of staff and how they will be kept up to date with the progress of the investigation.
• make recommendations where suitable on suspension, or alternatives to suspension.

17. The decision on the allegation(s) is made by the employer, although the views of others involved will be canvassed. The LADO will record the employer’s decision. The LADO will also record any difference of opinion.
18. As soon as possible after an allegation has been received, the accused member of staff should be advised to contact their union or professional association. Human resources should be consulted at the earliest opportunity in order that appropriate support can be provided via the organisation’s occupational health or employee welfare arrangements.

What happened

19. I have summarised below some key events leading to Mr X’s complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
20. The police arrested Mr X in January 2025 over his communications with a child online. The police notified the Council via its Integrated Front Door (IFD) service. The IFD then made a LADO referral.
21. The police had telephoned Mr X’s employer to tell them of his arrest as he was working with children and schools as a youth and community engagement officer.
22. The police also sent an email telling England Athletics and asking for contact details for the running club where Mr X was a ‘run leader’.
23. England Athletics sent the information to the UK Athletics safeguarding team and gave the police contact details for Mr X’s running club.
24. The police then told Mr X’s running club, to safeguard any children at the club.
25. The police set bail conditions including Mr X was to have no contact with anyone under 18 unless approved in writing.
26. A social worker from the Council’s children’s services sent the safeguarding referral to the LADO.
27. Mr X had was known to the LADO after being dismissed from his job as an assistant principal after the school substantiated previous allegations about him.
28. The LADO emailed Mr X’s running club to find out whether he held a position of trust or volunteered with children. The club confirmed Mr X does not hold a position of trust or work directly with children. The LADO noted there was no role for the running club in the process.
29. England Athletics told the LADO they were suspending Mr X’s licence for running. That was because he is a qualified run leader and the licence enables him to coach children, even though runners in his group are adults. England Athletics suggested Mr X’s running club also suspend him.
30. UK Athletics contacted the LADO and asked to be included in any future meetings. The LADO said because Mr X does not hold a position of trust within the running club there was no role for the LADO in that regard. The LADO said the police would keep UK Athletics updated as necessary.
31. UK Athletics told the LADO Mr X was a member of the British Mountaineering Council (BMC) and Mountain Training Association (MTA) until 2024. They asked BMC and MTA to put a block on his membership so he cannot renew. That was because Mr X may have taught children, although with parental supervision.
32. The LADO set up an allegations management meeting to discuss the safeguarding referral with the police and Mr X’s employer.
33. The police confirmed they completed a mental health risk assessment post arrest and considered it was safe to release Mr X.
34. Mr X’s employer said it suspended Mr X on full pay and told him about the employee assistance programme.
35. Mr X’s employer asked the LADO about the next steps in February 2025. The LADO told them to hold off any internal investigations until the police investigation ends, but they could obtain legal advice about Mr X’s employment with them.
36. The employer told the LADO Mr X’s DBS check needed for his employment had not come back yet. It would now not come back clear due to the police investigation. He therefore cannot carry out his role. The employer said it would invite Mr X to explain why.
37. The LADO asked the police for an update. The police were due to examine Mr X’s devices, which was likely to take several months.
38. Mr X’s employer told the LADO in March 2025 that Mr X had raised a grievance, so they are progressing to a disciplinary hearing in April.
39. The LADO asked Mr X’s employer for an update in April. The employer advised Mr X had resigned and the disciplinary process was on hold.
40. The LADO asked the police for an update on its investigation in July 2025.
41. The police advised it extended Mr X’s bail while it examined his devices and would bring him back in for discussions in October.

Complaint

42. Mr X complained about the LADO on 25 January 2025. He said:
• He doubted the LADO’s impartiality and objectiveness due to previous complaints about them, one of which was partially upheld.
• The LADO’s involvement detrimentally affected his mental health.
• The LADO contacted a friend of his and invited them to a multi-agency meeting. He said this was despite the organisation being one for adults.
• The LADO contacted UK Athletics and Athletics England, acting on wrong information. This was disproportionate because he has no involvement with children through running.
• This affected his ability to earn money and the Council failed in its duty of care to deal with the issue with respect.
43. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint on 4 February 2025. It said a previous complaint Mr X made about the LADO was partially upheld, as it found they could have acted sooner. However, it was not upheld that the LADO failed to protect a child. And Mr X’s other complaints about the LADO were not upheld. The Council said there was no suggestion the previous complaint meant the LADO could not undertake their role in this case.
44. The Council recognised a safeguarding intervention can be an emotional time. However, it said there was no evidence to support Mr X’s concerns about the appointed LADO and it would therefore not appoint a different one.
45. The Council said the police completed a mental health risk assessment and his employer signposted him to their employee assistance programme. If Mr X is struggling with his mental health, he should use this support or approach his doctor.
46. The Council said it is Mr X’s employer who owes a duty of care to him, not the Council. This is confirmed in the Council’s child protection procedures.
47. The Council said the LADO invited the safeguarding leads for UK Athletics and Mr X’s running club to a multi-agency meeting. That was because the police told the Council Mr X was involved in a running club for children aged 12 and over. Once the LADO found out Mr X did not hold a position of trust at the running club they were no longer invited to the meeting.
48. The Council said the LADO would not have known whether those contacted were friends of Mr X, and it is not relevant for LADO work. The LADO acted in line with child protection procedures.
49. The Council said the police contacted UK Athletics based on information they had. The LADO contacted them to check whether Mr X held a position of trust. Once they confirmed he did not, the contact stopped and the LADO did not involve UK Athletics in any meetings.
50. The Council understood Mr X’s employer suspended him on full pay, so he is not impacted financially by the investigation. This decision was made by Mr X’s employer, not the LADO.

My investigation

51. Mr X’s complaint to us was the Council did not address the issues raised in his complaint. Mr X said the Council did not address the impartiality of the LADO. And it did not address why the LADO contacted a friend of Mr X’s at his running club and invited them to a strategy meeting.
52. Mr X said the Council’s complaint response gave no evidence and did not refer to his freelance work, which is with adults and an added source of income he needed.
53. The Council told me it assigns LADO work on a rota basis. The LADO Mr X complained about was the duty LADO when the Council received the safeguarding referral about Mr X.
54. The Council said there is no suggestion Mr X’s previous complaints meant the LADO could not undertake the role of LADO in this case.
55. The LADOs role is to work with the police, children’s social care, employers and other professionals. The LADO does not conduct the investigation directly, but oversees the work to ensure thoroughness, timeliness and fairness. The outcome of an allegation is not the decision of a LADO, but of the employer.
56. The Council said the police ensured Mr X’s mental health following his arrest and before leaving the police station. Professionals also discussed this at the allegation management meeting. Mr X’s employer said they advised Mr X to contact the employee assistance programme.
57. The Council said the police contacted UK Athletics following Mr X’s arrest. They made a safeguarding disclosure because they received intelligence Mr X was part of a running club for children aged 12 and over.
58. The LADO contacted UK Athletics to confirm whether Mr X held a position of trust within the organisation. UK Athletics confirmed he did not, so contact stopped. UK Athletics were not part of the allegations management meeting and any contact with them was in a professional capacity. The LADO was not aware of any friendships Mr X had with members of the association.
59. The Council said the allegations management process remains open while the police continue their investigation.

Analysis

60. There were no previous upheld complaints about the conduct of the LADO which would prevent them overseeing new investigations. I appreciate having the same LADO who oversaw an earlier investigation caused Mr X distress. However, I found no basis on which to criticise the Council for allowing the LADO to oversee this investigation.
61. The LADO process by its nature can be distressing for people who are subject to safeguarding investigations. As the Council pointed out, it is the responsibility of the employer to support an employee through the process.
62. The LADO held a meeting with the police and Mr X’s employer to check what actions they took. I found Mr X’s welfare was discussed at the meeting. The police confirmed they assessed Mr X’s mental health before his release, and his employer gave him details of their employee assistance programme. The LADO followed correct procedures and was not at fault.
63. I found it was the police, not the LADO, who contacted Mr X’s employer, athletics authorities, and Mr X’s running club. The LADO followed up with the running club by asking if Mr X held a position of trust. When it found out he did not, the LADO ended involvement with the running club and athletics authorities, and they were not involved in the allegation management meeting.
64. I have not seen evidence the LADO was aware the contact at the running club was a friend of Mr X’s. And this would not override a LADO’s duty to contact an employer or agency to find out whether the subject of an investigation may hold a position of trust working with children.
65. I found the running club suspended Mr X after recommendation from the athletics authorities. The LADO had no role in that decision. I appreciate Mr X lost income because of the running club’s decision, but that was not the fault of the LADO or the Council.
66. I found no evidence of fault in the way the LADO oversaw this investigation to date. And I saw no evidence on which to question their impartiality. The LADO took the steps we would expect in overseeing the safeguarding investigation by liaising with relevant employers and agencies and providing advice on the direction of the investigation.

Back to top

Final Decision

67. I found the Council was not at fault in appointing the LADO following safeguarding allegations about Mr X. And there was no fault in the way the LADO oversaw the allegations management process.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman