Summary: Ms X complained about the way the Council responded to safeguarding concerns she raised about Y’s school. We do not find fault with the way the Council responded to Ms X’s allegations.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council failed to investigate safeguarding concerns she raised about her daughter Y’s school. Ms X says she made the Council aware the actions of the school had resulted in harm to Y, but it refused to investigate her concerns.

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. 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 has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, 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)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

7. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
8. Ms X first brought this complaint to the Ombudsman in September 2025, meaning anything that took place before September 2024 has been raised late, however the Council first received safeguarding allegations in April 2024.
9. As Ms X appears to have been pursuing this matter throughout that time, I have exercised discretion to look back to when the Council received the first safeguarding allegation in April 2024.
10. Any mention below to events that took place either before April 2024 or after September 2025 are for reference only.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
12. 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

Relevant law and policy

13. Councils have a duty to investigate if there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. They must decide whether they should take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. (Children Act 1989, section 47)
14. The Councils Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) is responsible for coordinating the response to concerns that an adult who works with children may have caused them harm.
15. Where necessary the LADO will obtain further information about the allegations and decide whether the threshold is met for statutory oversight.

What happened

16. I have summarised below some key events leading to Ms X’s complaint. While I have considered everything submitted, this is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
17. Y attended School A in the Council’s area but her and Ms X live in another council’s area
18. Ms X made several complaints to School A which were investigated through its usual complaints procedure.
19. In April 2024 Ofsted contacted the Council to explain Ms X had raised safeguarding concerns about Y’s medical needs not being adequately met at School A. Ofsted asked the Council to consider this and update it on the outcome.
20. The Council considered the information provided but decided it did not meet the threshold for LADO involvement. Instead, the Council engaged with Ms X to seek information about her complaint. Ms X did not consent to the Council discussing her concerns with School A, but it contacted the headteacher to obtain general assurances relating to the areas of concerns Ms X had raised.
21. The Council wrote to Ofsted in May 2024 to confirm it had discussed the safeguarding concerns with Ms X. It explained it had also spoken to School A. The Council said it had no concerns about any wider safeguarding issues at School A.
22. In October 2024, the Council’s LADO was contacted about a failure to make reasonable adjustments to integrate Y to School A, which had resulted in trauma and psychological harm. The LADO considered the information received but decided this fell outside of its remit and should be referred to Ofsted.
23. In November 2024 Ms X contacted the Council to explain she was still experiencing issues with School A and was in the process of having a complaint considered against it. Ms X also explained she had raised these as safeguarding issues with her home council. Ms X said the Council had failed to accept a safeguarding referral and had refused to investigate despite harm caused to Y. Ms X asked that safeguarding action now be taken.
24. The Council responded to explain the complaint Ms X had raised would be best dealt with through School A’s complaints process initially.
25. In January 2025 Ms X referred the complaint back to the Council for LADO involvement. The Council considered the complaint Ms X had made and responded to explain the threshold for LADO involvement had not been met. It said School A’s complaint process was the right way to deal with the allegations Ms X had made. The Council said Ms X had made no allegation that fell within the LADO’s remit. The Council explained Ms X had raised complaints about the actions of the school, not that a member of staff had behaved in a way that indicates they may represent a risk to children, so the school’s complaint process was the right way to address this.
26. In April 2025 Ms X wrote to the Council to explain she had specifically named the headteacher of School A as failing in their safeguarding duties to Y and so this was an allegation about inappropriate action of a specific member of staff.
27. The Council responded to reiterate its view that Ms X had identified complaints about the actions of the school rather than that a member of staff had behaved in a way that indicates they may represent a risk to children. The Council said if the school, governors or Ofsted found a member of staff had acted in a way that indicated they may represent a risk to children, they should refer this to the LADO but at present, the threshold had not been met for LADO investigation.

Analysis

28. Section 47 of the Children Act 1989 puts a duty on councils to investigate if there is a reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. They must decide whether they should take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare.
29. As Ms X’s home address is not within the Council’s area, the duty to investigate safeguarding allegations about School A lies with Ms X’s home council. This is the case even though School A is within the Council’s area.
30. If Ms X’s home council feels there are significant concerns to request a strategy meeting with the Council as the area where the incidents took place, it would be free to request this. I have seen no evidence that the Council refused to engage with Ms X’s home council’s investigation, so I do not find it at fault here.
31. Ms X has said the safeguarding allegations relate to specific members of staff and so should be considered by the Council’s LADO.
32. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong.
33. The Council received multiple referrals in the period I have investigated about safeguarding concerns relating to School A and specific members of staff. I have considered the steps the Council took to consider these concerns and the information it took account of when deciding whether it needed to take action.
34. When the Council received the reports it took account of the relevant guidance, information from Ms X, School A, and other agencies such as Ofsted. The Council followed the appropriate procedures when making decisions on the referrals and decided the threshold for LADO involvement had not been met. The Council informed Mrs X of its decision and its reasoning so I cannot criticise it.
35. There is no evidence the Council ignored the concerns Ms X raised. The Council acted in line with its duties and confirmed if other bodies or processes find a member of staff acted in a way that indicates they may represent a risk to children, it could consider this further. I find no fault with the process the Council followed.

Back to top

Decision

36. I find no fault in the actions of the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman