Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) dealt with a safeguarding concern about Ms X. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making and we cannot achieve the outcomes Ms X wants.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Local Authority Designated Officer’s (LADO) decision that a safeguarding concern about her should be recorded as substantiated. Ms X also complains about the LADO’s decision to make referrals to the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS), and her professional regulator about this matter. Although no further action has been taken by these organisations, Ms X says this prolonged her distress and caused uncertainty. She is also unhappy with the Council’s refusal to consider her concerns about the LADO under its complaint procedure. She wants her employment record rectified and a factually accurate employment reference, as well as financial compensation for lost earnings.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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)
4. 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 we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Councils have a duty to safeguard children and promote their welfare and must appoint a designated officer (LADO) to oversee investigations into allegations against people who work with children in their area.
8. In Spring 2025, the Council’s LADO received a referral about Ms X from her employer. The LADO recommended actions for other agencies to undertake to help in deciding the outcome of the allegation made. Ms X’s employer then completed its internal disciplinary investigation into the incident and decided to issue her with a written warning which would remain on employment record for six months.
9. The LADO reconvened an Allegations Management Meeting (AMM) to consider the safeguarding concern following the outcome of the employer’s disciplinary investigation. After considering all the information available to the LADO, it was concluded that what was alleged did happen or was likely to have happened on a balance of probabilities. The allegation was therefore substantiated.
10. The LADO wrote to Ms X to explain the rationale for the deciding the allegation was substantiated. Their letter detailed all the specific information that had been considered in reaching this conclusion. The LADO also advised Ms X that a referral would be made to the Disclosure and Barring Service and potentially her professional regulator subject to checking whether the LADO had jurisdiction to do so. The referral to Ms X’s professional regulator appears to have been made one to two months after this.
11. We will not investigate this complaint. The decision to substantiate the allegation against Ms X was one the LADO was entitled to make. They have considered relevant information and given Ms X a detailed explanation for the decision. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the LADO reached its decision and therefore we are unable to question the merits of that decision.
12. Although the LADO’s referral to Ms X’s professional regulator was not immediate, I am not persuaded the one to two months it took to make the referral directly caused sufficient injustice to justify us investigating this specific aspect of Ms X’s complaint further.
13. When Ms X approached the Council’s Complaints Team about the LADO, it explained it did not consider her concerns to constitute a complaint. This team advised Ms X to seek further clarification from the LADO directly. Ms X’s choice not to do so is not evidence of fault by the Council in respect of complaint handling.
14. Finally, we will not investigate this complaint because we cannot achieve the outcomes Ms X is seeking. Some of the outcomes are matters for Ms X’s employer rather than the Council and I understand she is pursuing those separately.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault and we cannot achieve the outcomes she wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman