Summary: The Council was not at fault. The Council’s Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) followed the correct procedures in relation to a referral made by Mr X’s employer. The LADO managed the process and oversight of the investigation correctly and was not at fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) and their handling of a referral made about Mr X by his employer. Mr X said the LADO labelled an allegation as substantiated and a transferable risk based on historic issues. Mr X said the LADO was given false and misleading information, the LADO withheld information from him and he had no right of reply. He said the information he submitted was not considered and the outcome was incorrect. He also said there were delays and he was suspended from work and it affected his career and caused reputational harm and distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
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(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have investigated between summer 2024 when the allegations were raised about Mr X and late June 2025 when the Council issued its final response.
7. I have not investigated Mr X’s concerns about the Council’s Subject Access Review response. As explained in paragraph three above he should contact the Information Commissioner.
8. I have not investigated new concerns Mr X has raised about his employer and the impact this had on the LADO investigation since he made his original complaint to the Council. As explained in paragraph four above the Council must have the chance to respond first. Mr X will need to raise this as a new complaint to the Council.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered evidence provided by the Council and Mr X and spoke to him on the telephone. I have considered relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Local Authority Designated Officer

11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. The National Lado Network states that ordinarily, to ensure impartiality, the LADO will not have direct contact with the adult against who the allegation has been made, or the family of the child/children involved but will, as part of their role ensure that these have information regarding outcomes.
15. An Initial Evaluation Meeting (IEM), chaired by the LADO, and attended by multiple agencies are held where it is alleged a person who is in a position of trust with children has:
• behaved in a way that has harmed, or may have harmed, a child;
• possibly committed a criminal offence against, or related to, a child;
• behaved towards a child or children that indicates they may pose a risk of harm to children;
• behaved or may have behaved in a way that indicates they may not be suitable to work with children. This includes behaviour that may have happened outside an organisation and include their relationship with others, that might make an individual unsuitable to work with children, this is known as a transferable risk.
16. One outcome of the IEM maybe to convene a multi-agency Post Allegation Investigation Meeting (PAIM) so the LADO has oversight of the investigation.
17. LADOs do not carry out investigations into allegations. Responsibility for the investigation and decision on the allegation(s) remains with the employer and/or the police, although the views of others involved will be sought. The LADO can provide advice and, where necessary, co-ordinate the process.
18. The different outcomes include:
• Substantiated – sufficient evidence to prove the allegation.
• Malicious – sufficient evidence to disprove the allegation and there has been a deliberate act to deceive.
• False – sufficient evidence to disprove the allegation.
• Unsubstantiated – insufficient evidence to prove or disprove the allegation. The term does not imply guilt or innocence.
19. Government guidance states if an organisation or agency removes an individual from work in regulated activity with children because the person poses a risk of harm to children, the organisation or agency should make a referral to the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) to consider whether to add the individual to the barred list.

What happened

20. In summer 2024 several allegations were made about Mr X to the police and his employer about Mr X’s alleged behaviour outside his workplace. Mr X was suspended from work the same day. Mr X’s work involved contact with children and vulnerable adults.
21. The next day Mr X’s employer made a referral to the Council’s Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) about him. The same day the LADO decided to progress to the Initial Evaluation Meeting (IEM). The LADO said the referral raised significant concerns regarding Mr X's suitability to work with children and there needed to be an assessment regarding any transferable risk.
22. The Council records show a few days later the IEM took place. This meeting was chaired by the LADO. The multi-agency meeting considered the allegations and concerns raised. It was confirmed because of Mr X’s work suspension the risk was managed but Mr X needed continued emotional support. It was agreed the investigation would be led by the police. Actions were agreed for Mr X’s employer, the LADO and the police with timescales and who would share information.
23. In Autumn 2024 several multi-agency post allegation investigation meetings (PAIM) were held. These meetings considered the allegations raised, further information provided by multiple agencies and reports provided by Mr X. It was confirmed the allegations had been closed by the police and there would be no further action. Mr X’s employer carried out an investigation and also made a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) referral. Mr X made some counter allegations and discussed these with his employer. The Council records showed the risk assessment and employment decision would be made by Mr X’s employer. Progress, actions for the different agencies and timescales were agreed and recorded after each meeting.
24. In late 2024 and early 2025 several PAIM meetings took place to discuss the update on the investigation. Mr X remained suspended from work. Council records showed Mr X’s employer acknowledged the investigation took longer than expected due to the volume of information considered. It concluded its investigation with a ‘substantiated’ outcome in relation to Mr X’s suitability to work with children. Actions were agreed including for Mr X to be updated on the investigation outcome and the need to be mindful about when he was told due to the Christmas period. It was noted a disciplinary hearing would be held in the new year. Mr X said he was told of the substantiated outcome by his employer a day before his disciplinary hearing which caused him distress.
25. New information was provided at the disciplinary hearing and it was agreed the LADO should consider this as it may change the outcome. The new information was reviewed but it remained as a substantiated outcome. Mr X said the outcome from the disciplinary hearing was a written warning.
26. In early June 2025 Mr X complained to the Council. He disagreed with the substantiated outcome. He said the LADO had not engaged with him, he had not been given a right of reply and false information had been shared about him. He said he remained suspended from work due to the substantiated outcome despite being cleared of the allegations during his employer investigation and he had not been referred to DBS.
27. In late June 2025 the Council responded to Mr X’s complaint. It explained the process and said the LADO highlights risks to ensure everyone is safeguarded but does not make a decision on employment, which was for Mr X’s employer to make. It said the LADO did not engage with individuals, Mr X’s employer or the police engaged with him to establish the facts. It said a multi-agency decision was reached. It said his employer had a duty to refer Mr X to the DBS when the outcome was substantiated.

Enquiries

28. In response to my enquiries the Council said Mr X’s employer carried out the investigation and was responsible for getting Mr X’s right of reply. It said Mr X’s employer received additional information from Mr X and two additional review meetings were held to consider this to ensure a fair process. It said the delays were due to Mr X’s employer not the LADO.
29. In response to my enquiries Mr X said he was assessed as a transferable risk to vulnerable adults and children but the allegations had not related to that and it affected him personally and professionally and caused him distress.

My findings

30. We are not an appeal body. Our role is to review the process by which the decision was made. Unless there was fault in the decision-making process, we cannot comment on the decisions reached.
31. The Council’s record showed the LADO followed the correct process when they received the referral about Mr X from his employer and held a multi-agency IEM to consider the allegations and multi-agency information. The LADO chaired both the IEM and PAIM’s and co-ordinated the process which was part of their role. It was Mr X’s employer’s role to complete the investigation, which it did. There was no fault in the way the LADO carried out its role regarding the referral or to monitor the progress of Mr X’s employer’s investigation.
32. Mr X complained he had no contact from the LADO, he was not given a right of reply and there was delay. The National LADO network said the LADO should usually not have direct contact with the adult against whom the allegation has been made. Council records show the LADO considered all available information and maintained proper oversight throughout. It was appropriate for the LADO to hold additional meetings to consider further issues raised by Mr X. There was no fault in the decision-making process.
33. It was Mr X’s employer’s role to explain the substantiated outcome and make referrals to the DBS. The Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Decision

34. I have completed my investigation finding no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman