London Borough of Bromley (21 006 702)

Category : Children's care services > Other

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 28 Jun 2022

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr and Mrs Y complain about the Council’s involvement in their concerns about a school. We find the Council did not manage Mr and Mrs Y’s expectations, failed to keep records of its decisions, and sometimes delayed in corresponding with Mr and Mrs Y. The apology and service improvements already undertaken by the Council are appropriate remedies and we do not recommend anything further.

The complaint

  1. Mr and Mrs Y complain about how the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) dealt with safeguarding concerns they raised in 2019 relating to three incidents at their sons’ school.
      1. Mr and Mrs Y feel the Council did not take appropriate action and the LADO, who acted with bias, relied on inaccurate information provided by the school which they failed to challenge or verify. They also complain the Council made repeated assurances over an 18-month period to address the issues raised, but then failed to do so.
      2. Mr and Mrs Y complain the LADO shared their confidential ‘whistleblowing’ complaint and related correspondence with the school without their knowledge or consent. They asked the Council to provide copies of their personal data, but the initial response was delayed and incomplete.
      3. Mr and Mrs Y also complain about how the Council handled their complaint and its refusal to review the outcome at the next stage of the complaints procedure.

Back to top

What I have investigated

  1. We have investigated complaints a) and c) but we have not investigated complaint b) for the reasons explained at the end of this statement.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  2. We cannot investigate complaints about what happens in schools. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 5(b), as amended)
  3. The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) considers complaints about freedom of information and data protection. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
  4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether an organisation’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
  5. 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(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. During my investigation I discussed the complaint with Mr and Mrs Y and considered any information they provided.
  2. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response.
  3. I considered the LGSCO’s discretion to investigate matters which the complainant has been aware of for more than 12 months. I have exercised discretion to investigate matters from 2019 because I am satisfied Mr and Mrs Y’s cause to complain arose in June 2020.
  4. Mr and Mrs Y and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Allegations against people who work with children

  1. Following the introduction of ‘Working Together to Safeguard Children’ in August 2018, organisations and agencies working with children and families should have clear policies for dealing with allegations against people who work with children. Such policies should make a clear distinction between an allegation, a concern about the quality of care or practice, or a complaint. An allegation may relate to a person who works with children who has:
    • behaved in a way that has or may have harmed a child
    • possibly committed a criminal offence against or related to a child
    • behaved towards a child or children in a way that indicates they may pose a risk of harm to children
  2. The Council’s Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) oversees and manages the investigation of allegations against people working with children. They will also provide advice and guidance to employers and voluntary agencies about handling such allegations

What happened

  1. Mr and Mrs Y have two sons, who I will refer to throughout this statement as B and C. At the time of the matters complained about, B and C attended an independent primary school in the Council’s area. I will refer to this as ‘the school’.
  2. In June 2019 Mr and Mrs Y contacted the Council’s LADO to express concerns about three incidents at the school. In summary, these were:
        1. During a PHSE lesson a teacher played an inappropriate animation to B’s year four class. The animation depicted the experiences of a young boy, who was the victim of bullying at school. The animated character committed suicide at the end of the video to escape the bullying. Mr and Mrs Y raised concerns with the school but the teacher denied showing the entire film.
        2. During a residential trip, another pupil took photographs of B whilst he was naked in a dormitory. The pupil showed the images to some other pupils who were also present on the trip which resulted in the taunting of B. The school did not notify Mr and Mrs Y about the incident either during the trip or immediately upon B’s arrival home.
        3. C sustained a head injury during a PE lesson. The school did not follow the procedures in place for reporting and monitoring head injuries. At school pickup time the class teacher was not aware of the incident. Mr and Mrs Y took C to hospital where he was diagnosed with concussion.
  3. The LADO contacted the school and requested an internal management investigation of Mr and Mrs Y’s safeguarding concerns. The LADO also suggested the school meet with Mr and Mrs Y to discuss their concerns in person.
  4. The school met with Mr and Mrs Y in July 2019 and wrote to the LADO confirming the outcome of that meeting. In relation to incident one, the letter said the school:
    • accepts the animation shown in a year four PHSE class was not age appropriate for use in a classroom environment.
    • held a meeting with the teacher and two senior members of staff and wrote to Mr and Mrs Y.
    • sent a letter of apology to all parents of children in the class.
    • issued reminders to staff about exercising care when selecting material to show to the children. In future, staff will only use anti-bullying resources sourced via appropriate websites such as NSPCC.
    • improved its IT filters and blocked ‘YouTube’ in school.
    • regularly train staff and governors in safeguarding .
  5. In response to incident two, the school has:
    • accepted, in retrospect, the incident should have been dealt with as a safeguarding issue. However, upon reviewing the photographs, decided that appropriate action was of a disciplinary nature, rather than safeguarding. The school say this is because, in their view, the photos did not show any ‘private parts’ or reveal the identity of the child.
    • interviewed the pupils involved.
    • met with the parents of the child who took the photographs and inspected the camera, which was found to have no images on it.
    • spoke to staff about safeguarding thresholds.
    • reviewed the protocol for school trips. In future, cameras will not be allowed in bedrooms overnight.
  6. For incident three, the school said:
    • it has a rigorous head injury policy and staff are to complete an accident report and contact parents when there is a concern about a head injury.
    • the staff member did not observe C’s injury at the time. Instead, the member of staff was told by another pupil. The staff member spoke to C, who said he was happy to continue with the lesson.
    • at the end of the school day, C’s class teacher observed bruising to the head and informed Mr and Mrs Y and offered ‘medical support’ which they declined.
    • it has urged staff to be vigilant regarding heard injuries and to abide with the policy.
    • it has reviewed the PE equipment and added ‘soft-impact material’ to improve safety.
  7. Mr and Mrs Y remained dissatisfied with the school’s handling of the incidents and continued to seek the support of the LADO in escalating their concerns. In particular, Mr and Mrs Y felt the school had varying and inconsistent accounts of all three incidents which had changed over time to suit the school’s agenda.
  8. The LADO left their role in September 2019. Another senior officer fulfilled the role and resumed contact with Mr and Mrs Y. The records show the officer had ongoing correspondence with Mr and Mrs Y throughout 2019 and 2020. I will not recap all the exchanges here. However, it is key to note in that time the officer had virtual meetings with both the school and Mr and Mrs Y to try and resolve their concerns.
  9. Mr and Mrs Y had a comprehensive list of questions which it asked the school to respond to. The school did not respond and so the officer contacted the Chair of Governors at the school to chase a response on behalf of Mr and Mrs Y. The school responded on 26 October 2019 and Mr and Mrs Y did not agree with the contents of the response. They said much of it was factually inaccurate or inconsistent with previous accounts. Mr and Mrs Y raised their concerns directly with the Chair of Governors but they did not reply.
  10. In January 2020 Mr and Mrs Y wrote to the officer seeking copies of all correspondence between the school and the LADO between May and December 2019. Mr and Mrs Y received the requested documents on 12 June 2020. Mr and Mrs Y say the response omitted key correspondence.
  11. In the meantime, Mr and Mrs Y continued to challenge the school about its handling of all three incidents and continued to express concerns to the officer.
  12. Following the school’s reluctance to continue engaging with Mr and Mrs Y, the officer wrote to the Chair of Governors again in November 2020. They pointed out the inaccuracies as alleged by Mr and Mrs Y and to note the different explanations provided by the school over time. The officer also noted their view that allegations two and three “did not appear to meet the criteria for LADO intervention”
  13. The Chair responded to express concern about the nature and frequency of Mr and Mrs Y’s continued correspondence and suggested a virtual meeting with the officer. The meeting did not take place as the parties could not arrange a mutually convenient time.
  14. In May 2021 the officer wrote to Mr and Mrs Y confirming the end of their involvement, “While over the passage of time you appear to have received some different accounts, it is also clear that the school changed its practice in the showing of videos. The other incidents and aspects of your complaints about the school did not reach a LADO threshold. Our Education Safeguarding Officer works with all Bromley schools and will work with this school as appropriate in the future. I have done what I can to support you but cannot identify a further role for me”

Was there fault in the Council’s actions causing injustice to Mr and Mrs Y?

  1. The LGSCO cannot interfere with the merits of decisions properly made. This means we cannot question the Council’s professional judgement in deciding whether the matters of concern warranted formal safeguarding action, unless the evidence shows the LADO’s decision making was procedurally flawed. For this reason, my investigation has focussed primarily on the procedure followed in this case.
  2. The ‘London Child Safeguarding Procedures’ sets out the process to be followed by LADOs. The relevant parts say:

“All concerns reported to the LADO should be assessed to decide if the threshold for an allegation has been met. In cases where it is not clear whether the threshold has been met, it might be necessary to have a discussion (by phone or n a meeting) to evaluate whether the threshold is met – sometimes referred to as an evaluation meeting”

“The employer and the LADO should discuss the incident and agree whether or not it meets the threshold for risk of harm. Consideration should be given to the risk or potential risk to both the child/children directly affected by the issue and any other children who may also be at risk”

“Where it is decided that the incident does not meet the threshold of harm/risk of harm and is a concern only, then the employer should take steps to ensure any conduct or behaviour issues are addressed with the member of staff through normal employment practices”

  1. The procedures go on to say:

“It is important to be aware that LADOs do not carry out investigations into allegations – responsibility for the investigation remains with the employer (or whoever is commissioned by the employer to investigate the process) and/or the police. The LADO can provide advice and, where necessary, co-ordinate the process. The LADO is also responsible for ensuring an appropriate outcome is reached…”

“The LADO should keep comprehensive records in order to ensure that each case is being dealt with expeditiously and that there are no undue delays/ the records also assist the safeguarding partnership to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the procedures for managing allegations and provide statistical information to the Department for Education (DfE) as required.”

  1. I find the Council at fault for the following reasons:
    • failure to keep contemporaneous case records to evidence its initial evaluation and assessment of all three incidents;
    • missed an opportunity to manage Mr and Mrs Y’s expectations when they first made contact in 2019. The LADO told Mr and Mrs Y in an email that she was undertaking a ‘LADO investigation’. However, the officer who later fulfilled the role told Mr and Mrs Y that two of their three concerns did not meet the threshold for further involvement and the other remaining concern was resolved to the Council’s satisfaction; and
    • delay in concluding the case. Having reviewed the records, I can see the delay, in part, was due to the school’s reluctance to cooperate and the pressures presented by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the Council could have done more to conclude matters sooner.
  2. I have considered whether the procedural fault we have found affected the Council’s decision making. Although there is no evidence of an evaluation meeting, the Council ensured the school undertook an internal investigation of all three allegations. The Council has confirmed to the school, the complainants and the LGSCO that allegations two and three did not meet the threshold for further involvement and that the school had already taken appropriate steps in relation to allegation one. This is a matter of professional judgement. In my view, the procedural fault identified does not call into question the conclusions reached and the LGSCO is not able to question the merits of the Council’s decision.
  3. I have also considered Mr and Mrs Y’s complaint about bias. I understand that Mr and Mrs Y became concerned when they discovered their emails to the Council were sometimes shared with the school, without their knowledge or consent. While I have not investigated this point for the reasons explained at the end of this statement, I appreciate this likely gave the impression of bias. With that said, there is no evidence the Council acted with any bias. Although for confidentiality reasons I cannot refer to other cases here, based on information provided by the Council, I am satisfied there is no evidence of bias towards the school.
  4. Mr and Mrs Y consider the Council accepted the school’s accounts without challenging or verifying the information provided. I have reviewed the correspondence between the Council and the school. It is clear the Council did seek to clarify and verify the school’s accounts throughout their continued correspondence. Although there are conflicting accounts given by the school about the video shown to B’s class, the Council eventually decided the school had taken appropriate action following Mr and Mrs Y’s complaint. In my view, the Council’s decision to conclude the case was not influenced by the varying accounts given by the school and was instead based upon the school’s agreement to undertake the range of actions listed in paragraphs 17 to 19 of this statement.
  5. Finally, I have considered Mr and Mrs Y’s concerns about the Council’s complaint handling. Their complaint fell within the remit of the corporate complaints procedure, which operates only one stage. I appreciate that Mr and Mrs Y would have preferred for a second review of their complaint by the Council, however the Council was not obliged to do so as per their complaints policy.

Remedy

  1. I have considered whether the LGSCO should recommend a remedy for any injustice caused by the fault identified in paragraph 31 of this statement. In my view, I find the Council has already taken appropriate steps to improve its services. This is because the Council has:
    • published information brochures for parents about LADO involvement
    • changed how it records and stores information through a new electronic recording system
    • introduced full time business support from the LADO
    • implemented a comprehensive tracker of all cases
    • strengthened the role of its Education Safeguarding Officer
  2. The Council has also apologised to Mr and Mrs Y for the delay in its response times. I consider this is an appropriate personal remedy for the time and trouble Mr and Mrs Y experienced and I do not recommend anything further.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault causing injustice for the reasons explained in this statement.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

  1. Mr and Mrs Y complain the LADO shared confidential correspondence with the school without their knowledge or consent. They also complain about the Council’s response to their request for copies of their personal data, which was delayed and incomplete. Mr and Mrs Y have already complained to the ICO about complaint b) and so the LGSCO has no jurisdiction to consider this point.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings