Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the outcome of the Council’s Local Authority Designated Officer safeguarding process. Some of the complaints are late and with the others, there is not enough evidence of fault or significant injustice to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the outcome of the Council’s Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) safeguarding process, after it recorded allegations against him as substantiated in 2022. Mr X found out the allegations had been substantiated in August 2024. He complained to the Council at the beginning of 2025 about:
• the LADO’s failure to support him at the time of the events and subsequent investigation; and
• the LADO’s failure to inform him that they had recorded the allegations as substantiated.
2. The Council refused to consider Mr X’s complaint because it said Mr X had been aware of these matters since 2022.
3. Mr X says this is unreasonable. He says the substantiated finding has affected his career prospects and his mental health. He wants the Council to apologise, consider his complaint, rectify records it holds, inform Mr X’s ex-employer and the Police and reimburse him for his legal fees.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council/care provider has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
6. We cannot investigate most complaints about what happens in schools. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 5(2), as amended)
7. 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 another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
9. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

10. The role of the LADO is to provide oversight and guidance to employers about how to deal with allegations against people who work with children. The LADO is not responsible for completing the investigation into the allegations; that is the responsibility of the employer.
11. In February 2022, the Council received a referral from Mr X’s employer about allegations against him. The LADO received more concerns soon after. A meeting was convened after Mr X’s employer had carried out an internal investigation and the LADO came to a finding that the allegations were substantiated. The LADO recommended the employer carry out a disciplinary hearing. The meeting notes record Mr X’s employer confirmed it would tell Mr X this outcome.
12. After the hearing, Mr X received a written final warning from his employer. He later resigned.
13. Mr X applied for a new job in mid-2024. This required an enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) certificate which is a record of a person’s criminal convictions and warnings. The information from the Police recorded the LADO allegations had been substantiated. Mr X says this is the first time he became aware of this.
14. Mr X says following submissions he made to the Police, they issued him with a clear enhanced DBS certificate.
15. Mr X says complained to the Council within 12 months of discovering the LADO upheld the allegations. He is unhappy the Council will now not consider his complaint because it says it is late.
16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaints for the following reasons:
• All matters relating to the actions of the employer are outside our jurisdiction because we do not have the power to investigate them;
• All matters relating to the actions of the LADO in relation to the support provided to Mr X during the events of 2022 are late because Mr X was aware of this at the time and could have complained earlier. I note Mr X’s representative says Mr X’s disabilities prevented him from doing so. However, Mr X has demonstrated he was able to take action against his employer at that time. He also had someone to represent him in bringing a complaint. Therefore, I will not exercise discretion and investigate now;
• Mr X says he was unaware of the LADO’s substantiated findings until mid-2024. This is despite there being a disciplinary meeting covering the same matters held by his employer where I consider it likely these issues were raised;
• But even if I accept Mr X remained unaware, the Council’s policy states it is the employer’s responsibility to communicate the outcome of a LADO investigation. The employer confirmed to the Council it intended to do that. It is, therefore, not the fault of the Council if Mr X did not know about the outcome earlier; and
• And in any event, Mr X knew about his employer’s investigation in 2022 and the LADO involvement. If he had concerns about not knowing the outcome or the LADO process it would have been reasonable for him to complain to the Council sooner.
17. We will not investigate complaints if any outstanding injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. Mr X’s enhanced DBS certificate is clear and so this should not impact on any future job opportunities. As he states he only became aware of the substantiated outcome in mid-2024 and he was issued with a clear DBS certificate shortly afterwards, the injustice is also not significant enough to warrant a full investigation.
18. Because we are not investigating the substantive matters we will not investigate the Council’s handling of Mr X’s complaint. This is because it is unlikely there would be enough injustice to warrant an investigation into this in isolation.

Back to top

Final decision

19. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because some of the complaints are late and with the others, there is not enough evidence of fault or significant injustice to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman