Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the involvement of a Local Authority Designated Officer from the Council because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant investigation by us. We also cannot investigate the actions of the school as a legal bar prevents us doing so.

The complaint

1. Miss Y complains about the Council’s LADO’s (Local Authority Designated Officer) involvement following an incident at a school she worked at.
2. Miss Y says because of the LADO findings, the school ended her employment, and her children had to move schools.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We cannot investigate most complaints about what happens in schools. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 5(2), as amended)
5. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Miss Y.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

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.
9. The school Miss Y worked at made a report to the LADO about Miss Y disclosing sensitive information to a child she worked with, that could have caused harm.
10. The Council’s LADO had a legal duty to get involved when the referral was made by the school. As the Council had a duty to become involved following the referral, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our investigation regarding their involvement.
11. Miss Y is also unhappy with the LADO involvement because she felt the involvement was unhelpful as it initially allowed the school to investigate whether there had been emotional harm to the child.
12. The Council’s role here was limited. The officer responsible for safeguarding (the LADO) oversees the work done by schools, but is not responsible for it. A LADO’s role is to ensure there is no risk of harm to children. It does not extend to deciding matters of innocence or guilt in the same way as a court or what the school chooses to investigate. As the LADO could not decide what the school investigated, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.
13. Miss Y says the LADO investigation led to dismissal from her job at the school. However, disciplinary action remains the employer’s responsibility, which is the school, not the LADO or the Council.
14. The law says we cannot investigate the school’s actions in making the referral, its investigation or its decision to dismiss Miss Y from her role. Therefore, we cannot investigate this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Miss Y’s complaint about the LADO’s involvement in her case because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant investigation by us. We also cannot investigate the actions of the school Miss Y was employed by as a legal bar prevents us doing so.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman