Summary: There is no evidence that the Local Authority Designated Officer failed to follow procedures, after an allegation was made against Mr C.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr C, complains that the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) failed to follow procedures after allegations were made against him, while he was working as a teacher. Mr C says this has resulted in him losing his job which has ruined his life. Mr C says:
1. The LADO relied on inaccurate information from the police when reaching its conclusions.
2. The LADO reached the wrong conclusions about the allegations.
3. His views were not considered during the LADO process.
4. He was not provided with a letter explaining the outcome of the LADO investigation.
5. Information he requested in a Freedom of Information request was redacted, so he cannot see the source of the information.

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated Mr C’s complaint points marked A-D above.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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.
5. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. During my investigation I have:
• Spoken with Mr C about his complaint and considered information he provided.
• Made enquiries with the Council and considered information it provided.
• Considered relevant guidance and Council policy.
7. I also sent a draft version of this decision to both parties and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Allegations against people who work with children

8. Government guidance says councils should designate a particular officer, or team of officers, “to be involved in the management and oversight of allegations against people who work with children.” (Working together to safeguard children, Department for Education 2018, Chapter 2, paragraph 5). The officer is known as the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO).

The Council’s procedures for safeguarding children

9. After receiving an allegation against a person who works with children, the Council will refer the allegation to its LADO. The LADO’s responsibilities include:
• Management and oversight of the case;
• Providing advice and guidance to the employer;
• Liaising with Police and other agencies; and
• Monitoring the progress of the case to ensure it is dealt with as soon as possible.
10. There are four possible outcomes to allegations made to a LADO:
• Substantiated: Supported or established by evidence or proof.
• Unsubstantiated: There is insufficient identifiable evidence to prove or disprove the allegation. Does not imply guilt or innocence.
• Unfounded: Indicated that the person making the allegation misinterpreted the incident or was mistake about what they saw.
• Malicious: A deliberate act to decision
11. Where allegations are made against adults who work with children in a school setting, it is the Police or Children’s MASH team who will initially investigate. Once either of those agencies indicates they will no longer be conducting their investigation, the LADO will then discuss the next steps with the school.

What happened

12. In December 2017, Mr C started working at a school on a temporary contract in the Council’s area. At the time he lived with his ex-partner. I shall refer to his ex-partner as Ms Z.
13. In January, the LADO received a referral from the police. The referral said that in December Ms Z called the police and reported a “domestic incident” which resulted in Mr C being removed from the property and located in a hotel.
14. The referral said that since the initial call there had been three further calls, where it had been alleged that Mr C had assaulted Ms Z.
15. The referral also said that it had also been alleged that Mr C had been drinking heavily, had been sectioned twice and there were fears for his mental health, he visited sex workers and had an inappropriate relationship with a pupil.
16. An initial LADO strategy meeting was chaired by the LADO. Representatives from the police and the school that employed Mr C were amongst the attendees to this and subsequent meetings. The case was discussed, and several actions were agreed.
17. Following the initial LADO meeting, the School contacted Mr C to inform him of the referral and the LADO process.
18. Two weeks later a review meeting was held. The police provided an update to the investigation. They said Mr C had denied the allegations and that when he was shown a video, which showed Mr C saying that he had held Ms C by the throat, however Mr C subsequently said that he had not done this.
19. The school told the LADO that it had made Mr C aware of the LADO investigation. Mr C was still off work sick, but the school would be offering to meet him upon his return.
20. A further review meeting was held two weeks later. The police said that its investigation was complete and there would be no further action taken as the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) concluded there was insufficient evidence to take the case to court.
21. The police said that a non-molestation order had been put in place stopping Mr C from contacting Ms Z’s mother. However, Mr C had since breached the order and there had been numerous police visits to Mr C regarding this.
22. The police also said that a Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC) had been convened by a separate police force to assess the risks posed by Mr C in relation to domestic violence. The MARAC had since assessed that Mr C posed a high (or “Gold”) risk.
23. A final review meeting was held. The police said that since the last meeting Mr C had therefore been issued a harassment notice.
24. The School said that Mr C was still not engaging with the LADO process.
25. In considering the allegation of domestic violence, the LADO acknowledged that the CPS had concluded there was insufficient evidence to take the case to court, but also that Mr C had been assessed as a Gold MARAC, had a non-molestation order in place which he had breached and that he had been issued with an harassment order. The LADO therefore considered this allegation to be substantiated.
26. In considering the allegation that Mr C had mental health problems and a problem with alcohol, the LADO noted that he had not engaged with occupational health and had not completed a medical questionnaire. The LADO therefore considered this allegation to be unsubstantiated.
27. In considering the allegation that Mr C had an inappropriate relationship with a student, the LADO found that despite efforts, the allegation had not been corroborated. The LADO therefore considered this allegation to be unsubstantiated.
28. Two weeks later, the Head Teacher of the school met with Mr C to provide him with the outcome of the LADO investigation.
29. Mr C subsequently complained to the police about several inaccuracies with the information it had provided to the LADO. Mr C said that it was he, and not Ms Z that contacted the police on the day of the first call out. Mr C also said that the allegations on that day and on other occasions were not that he had assaulted Ms Z, but that she had assaulted him.
30. In responding to Mr C’s complaint, the police did not find that the allegations of assault had been made by him towards Ms Z, but did find that the original call was made by Mr C and not Ms Z.

Analysis

31. Mr C says his views were not considered during the LADO process, and that he did not receive written confirmation of the outcome.
32. It was for the school to liaise with Mr C during the LADO process. I am satisfied that the LADO requested the school contact Mr C during its investigation. Records show that the LADO checked on the progress of this at review meetings and note that the school informed the LADO that he was not engaging with the process.
33. At the end of the process, records show the school met with Mr C to inform him of the outcome of the process.
34. The Ombudsman cannot investigate the actions of the school. However, I am satisfied that the LADO properly liaised with the school about communications with Mr C, and therefore do not find fault with how it dealt with this matter.
35. Mr C says the LADO relied upon inaccurate information when reaching its conclusions.
36. The police accept that the information it provided regarding who made the initial call was inaccurate. However, I cannot investigate the actions of the police and do not find that any evidence that the LADO was at fault for including this information in their investigation.
37. I also do not conclude that this inaccurate information caused Mr C an injustice. This is because, on balance, I do not consider that the inaccurate information had a significant impact on the LADO’s findings.
38. Mr C says that the LADO should not have found the allegation of domestic violence to be substantiated. However, when reaching this finding I am satisfied that the LADO considered a range of information from different sources. I am therefore satisfied there was no fault in how the LADO reached its decision.
39. Whilst Mr C disagrees strongly with the LADO’s finding, the Ombudsman cannot replace a view that has been reached without fault with his own.
40. Mr C also feels strongly that the other findings should have been recorded as malicious, rather than unsubstantiated. However, the same point stands. I am satisfied that these decisions were reached without fault, and therefore cannot questions the merits of them.
41. Furthermore, I do not consider that the findings have caused Mr C an injustice, as unsubstantiated findings do not imply guilt.

Back to top

Final decision

42. I have concluded my investigation with a finding of no fault.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

43. I have not investigated Mr C’s complaint about the response to his Freedom of Information request. If he is dissatisfied with the response, he received he can then complain to the Information Commissioners Office (ICO). The ICO is better suited to deal with these complaints.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman