Summary: There is no evidence of fault in how the Council’s LADO, dealt with allegations made about Ms C.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall refer to as Ms C, complains about the involvement of the Councils Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO), after allegations were made against her. Ms C says these failings meant she is now unable to secure employment, leading to a loss of earnings and distress. Ms C says:
• The LADO failed to ensure she was made aware of the allegations.
• The LADO failed to inform her of the LADO procedure
• The LADO failed to verify that her employer had invited her to the LADO meeting.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated the LADO’s role in coordinating the investigation. I have not investigated the allegations themselves. This is the employers’ job. The Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints about the actions of the employer.
3. The investigation is confidential. Ms C is not entitled to see the papers. Further, the Ombudsman must not disclose any details which could identify Ms C when we publish our final decision on his complaint. For these reasons, I have not referred to any details of the incident itself.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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)
5. We cannot investigate a complaint if it is about a personnel issue. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5a, paragraph 4, as amended)
6. 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

7. I have considered:
• information provided by Ms C;
• information provided by the Council, including the papers from the process overseen by the LADO; and
• Working together to safeguard children, guidance published by the Department for Education in 2018.
8. I have 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

9. 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 LADO.
10. If an employer removes a person from working with children because he or she poses a risk of harm, it must make a referral to the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS). It is then up to the DBS to decide if that person should then be barred from working with children.
11. The Norfolk Safeguarding Children Board has published detailed guidance to explain the LADO’s role. The guidance is available on the Board’s website.
12. In Norfolk, the LADO oversees the investigation, provides advice and guidance, and keeps detailed records. The LADO does not undertake the investigation itself. This is the employer’s responsibility.
13. A final LADO meeting will be held to decide about the outcome of the allegation made. It is the employer’s role to ensure the views of the person named in the allegation. However, they do not attend any of the LADO meetings in person.

What happened

14. Ms C was a nurse employed by a medical surgery.
15. In March 2020, there was an incident which was reported to Ms C’s employer. After discussions with her employer, Ms C subsequently reported the matter to the police who subsequently referred the matter to the LADO, who arranged an initial meeting.
16. Prior to the initial meeting, Ms C’s employer carried out a disciplinary investigation into the matter and made the decision to dismiss Ms C from their employment.
17. The LADO chaired its initial meeting which considered information provided by her employer. The employer said that Ms C had been visited at home and had been made aware of the LADO process.
18. During the meeting, several actions were agreed, which were to be completed before the final LADO meeting. The employer agreed that it would inform Ms C of the progress of the LADO investigation and ask her for her views on the allegation.
19. Records show that prior to the final LADO meeting, Ms C’s employer contacted the LADO and said that Ms C is clear about the LADO process and had been made aware that she could provide additional representations.
20. The LADO concluded that the allegation was substantiated. Because of this and because Ms C had been dismissed, the LADO concluded that a referral should be made to the Disclosure and Baring Service (DBS).

Analysis

21. The Ombudsman does not decide whether Ms C acted in a way which put children at risk of harm. This is the job of the meeting chaired by the LADO. The employer is responsible for undertaking the investigation and any disciplinary action against Ms C.
22. The Ombudsman cannot consider complaints about the employer. My job is to check the LADO oversaw the process in line with the procedures published on the Norfolk Safeguarding Children Board website.
23. Ms C complains that the LADO failed to ensure that she was made aware of the allegations or the LADO process.
24. However, it is not the LADO’s responsibility to inform Ms C of the allegations or the process, it is the employers. I have reviewed records and it is clear that the LADO instructed the employer to inform Ms C about the allegation and process, and the employer subsequently informed the LADO that it had done this.
25. Ms C also complains that the LADO did not invite her to the final LADO meeting and therefore her views were not considered.
26. People subject to allegations are not invited to meetings so I cannot conclude that the LADO were at fault for not invited Ms C.
27. The views of those subject to allegations should be sought prior to a final meeting. However, this again in the role of the employer to seek these views. Records show that the Council instructed Ms C’s employer to ask Ms C if she wanted to provide their views, which the employer said it had. It subsequently told the Council that Ms C had not responded.
28. The evidence satisfies me there was no fault in the meeting convened by the LADO to discuss the allegations. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions taken without fault.
29. Ms C complains the LADO's involvement resulted in information being recorded by the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) which prevented her securing another teaching job.
30. Ms C’s employer, had a duty to report certain incidents to the DBS. However, the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints about the employer. There is no fault by the LADO for reminding the school of its duty.

Back to top

Final decision

31. I have concluded my investigation on the basis that there is no evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman