Summary: Ms X complained that the Council failed to consider a safeguarding complaint she made. The Council is not at fault for how it made its decision on Ms X’s safeguarding complaint. It followed its Local Authority Designated Officer policy and statutory guidance. However, there is fault in the way it communicated its decision to Ms X. This caused Ms X confusion and distress. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and write to her to explain the reasons for its decision.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council did not investigate her safeguarding concerns involving her son (Y) and a staff member at his school. The Council said it did not investigate because the school is an academy, so it was not responsible for looking into the matter. Ms X says nothing was done about the allegations and as a result, both her and Y have suffered significant distress and Y refuses to attend school. Ms X wants the Council to investigate the allegations.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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. We cannot investigate most complaints about what happens in schools. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 5(2), 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)
6. 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

7. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council. I have also considered relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Ms 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

Allegations against people who work with children

9. Following the introduction of ‘Working Together to Safeguard Children’ in August 2018 (statutory guidance), organisations and agencies working with children and families should have clear policies for dealing with allegations against people who work with children. Such policies should make a clear distinction between an allegation, a concern about the quality of care or practice, or a complaint. An allegation may relate to a person who works with children who has:
• behaved in a way that has or may have harmed a child
• possibly committed a criminal offence against or related to a child
• behaved towards a child or children in a way that indicates they may pose a risk of harm to children

The Council’s Local Authority Designated Officer process

10. The Council’s Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) oversees and manages the investigation of allegations against people working with children. They will also provide advice and guidance to employers and voluntary agencies about handling such allegations.
11. When an allegation is made a referral must be made to LADO within one working day. The LADO should then respond to this allegation within one working day.
12. The LADO will speak to the referrer or employer of the member of staff referred to it. Where necessary the LADO will obtain further information about the allegations.
13. The LADO may ask the referrer to complete an initial fact finding which considers what the young person has said, what the staff member involved has said, and any incident reports completed.
14. The LADO will then consult with children’s services or the police to consider if their involvement is necessary, and to establish if a strategy discussion meeting or Position of Trust meeting should be held. The LADO should also discuss whether the allegation should be considered solely by the employer.
15. The Council will decide whether to make Section 47 (S47) enquiries. Section 47 of the Children Act places a duty on agencies, but mainly the council and the police, to make “such enquiries as they consider necessary to enable them to decide whether to take action to safeguard or promote the welfare of a child in their area”.
16. The LADO will decide a referral outcome and will communicate this to the referrer, employer and parent of the young person.

What happened

17. This is an overview of key events and is not intended to detail everything that happened.
18. Y has special educational needs (SEN) and attended an academy school on a part time basis.
19. Ms X said the school had told her it was keeping Y in a separate room from other children due to his SEN. She felt he was being deliberately isolated from his peers.
20. In December 2024, Ms X said she noticed a change in Y’s mood. He became very distressed at home, began self-harming and started to have frequent night terrors. He also became distressed going to school. Ms X said Y disclosed a serious incident involving a staff member at the school.
21. In January 2025, Ms X reported her concerns of Y’s alleged abuse by a staff member and his isolation from other children to the Council.
22. On the same day, the Council sent the email to its LADO. The LADO made enquiries of the children’s social work team to check whether any other incident reports had been made involving the school. The LADO arranged a meeting with the school for the next working day to conduct initial fact finding.
23. The LADO spoke with the school and discussed Ms X’s allegations. Following this conversation, the LADO did not consider there to be any evidence that suggested inappropriate conduct.
24. The next day, the Council held a Child in Need (CiN) meeting. Y was subject to a CiN plan. This plan outlines the support children’s services is providing to a child and/or their family. Y’s father attended the meeting. The Council discussed the allegations with the attendees. It decided that, as no specific allegation of harm had been made against a particular individual, it would not be possible to open a file into the allegations.
25. The Council decided not to hold a strategy discussion as it was not possible to take the allegation forward. More broadly, it decided, following its discussion with the school and the Council’s SEN team, that there was no substantiated risk of harm. It explained that it was content for the school to conduct its own investigation.
26. Two days after the CiN meeting, the Council sent Ms X the meeting minutes which detailed the LADO’s involvement and what was discussed at the meeting.
27. Following the allegations, Ms X says the school removed Y from its roll. He has not returned to an educational setting since. She said it did not investigate her allegations.
28. In March, the Council responded to Ms X’s safeguarding complaint and said it did not control or maintain the school since the school was an academy and directly answerable to the Department of Education. It said it did not therefore undertake an investigation since it was not within its remit to do so, and said the school was better placed to deal with the complaint. It also said it had met its general safeguarding duty by discussing safeguarding practices and procedures with the school. It had not identified any concerns from the discussion.
29. Ms X was unhappy with the Council’s response so complained to the Ombudsman in March 2025.

Analysis

30. Paragraphs 10 to 14 detail the initial steps the Council’s LADO should have taken in response to Ms X’s allegations. I am satisfied the LADO took the correct steps. In this case, the Council received a safeguarding complaint from Ms X and made a LADO referral on the same day. The LADO then made immediate contact with the Council’s children’s social work team and spoke with the school to carry out initial factfinding.
31. The Council then held a CiN meeting where it discussed Ms X’s allegations. It established that Ms X had not identified any individual as the subject of the allegations. It explained that without an identified individual against which to open an allegation file, it could not go any further.
32. Based on their conversations with the school and the social work team, and further discussion of the allegations at the meeting, the LADO decided not to hold a strategy meeting. They also decided there was not a substantiated risk of harm to Y that warranted further involvement. The Council agreed at the meeting that the academy would carry out its own safeguarding investigation.
33. Although I understand Ms X strongly disagrees, the Council’s LADO was entitled to make this decision. The LADO followed the correct process outlined in the Council’s policy and statutory guidance, and there is no evidence to suggest fault in the decision-making process. The Ombudsman cannot challenge the merits of this decision since it was properly made. I understand Ms X says the school did not investigate, but this is not for the Ombudsman to comment on. The actions of the school are not within our jurisdiction.
34. The Council sent Ms X a letter explaining it would not investigate her allegations since the school is an academy, and the safeguarding concern was therefore not in its remit. It told Ms X that academy schools have their own safeguarding procedures and are accountable to the Department of Education. While this is partially true, it did not explain to Ms X that the LADO does still have a safeguarding duty to a child regardless of whether they attend an academy school. Similarly, it failed to explain that it discharged this duty and did not clearly outline the steps it had taken in response to her allegations. I understand the Council circulated the minutes of the CiN meeting to Ms X, and that she was aware this meeting had taken place. However, it should have formally explained the reasons for its decision not to investigate. The Council’s failure to provide Ms X with a clear outcome is fault.
35. I have considered the injustice caused to Ms X by this fault. Ultimately the decision not to investigate did not change, but the Council’s fault caused confusion, and Ms X was left feeling unsure as to why the Council would not investigate. She believed no steps has been taken in response to her allegations which caused her distress. I have recommended a remedy below to address this injustice.
36. The Council has since confirmed to the Ombudsman it is aware it must consider its duties whether a school is an academy or not, and explained this was not in question. The Council has told the Ombudsman its failure to provide a clear outcome was an oversight and has served as a point of learning. It has said that where necessary, it will now either issue a joint complaint response from the LADO and Education Directorate, or ensure a separate response is provided from the Education Directorate and the LADO to ensure the completeness of future complaint outcomes. I am satisfied with this approach, so have not recommended any service improvements.

Back to top

Action

37. Within one month of the final decision the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise to Ms X for the confusion and distress caused by its failure to communicate the reasons for its decision not to investigate her safeguarding complaint.
2. Write to Ms X outlining the reasons for its decision regarding her safeguarding complaint.
38. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

39. I have completed my investigation. I find fault causing injustice for which I have recommended a remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman