Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a safeguarding failure by the Council. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation. We cannot investigate the actions of the school in this case.

The complaint

1. Mr X said the Council failed in its duty of care to his child. He said a teacher at the child’s school deliberately goaded the child in order to ensure his exclusion by triggering a post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) reaction caused by an unrelated historic incident of extreme violence experienced by the child. He said the teacher did this to impress another pupil and that he had real concerns about the teacher’s relationship with the other pupil. He said the local authority designated officer for safeguarding (LADO) staff refused to help. He wanted the teacher dismissed and the LADO staff retrained.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

3. We cannot investigate most complaints about what happens in schools. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 5(2), as amended
4. We cannot investigate a complaint if it is about a personnel issue. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5a, paragraph 4, as amended))

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. The complaint does not concern the delivery of special educational needs provision (SEN) as laid out in an Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan. Therefore, where it concerns the actions of a teacher and the school management and governors, we cannot investigate it. Even if that were not so, we could not make recommendations about personnel matters.
8. The Council’s safeguarding function is within our jurisdiction. However, we will only investigate if we think there is a realistic possibility of finding fault in the way the Council reached its decision. We cannot substitute our view for the LADO’s view unless we find the decision was taken with procedural fault. So, a LADO may decide a matter alleged does not reach the threshold for safeguarding action.
9. In this case, the teacher was said to have goaded the child, provoking a reaction, and leading to the child’s permanent exclusion. Mr X said the permanent exclusion was later overturned.
10. It is clear the LADO view was that the events brought to its attention did not meet the threshold for safeguarding action. Given what was reported, it is unlikely that that view was a matter of fault rather than an opinion the LADO was entitled to form.
11. Mr X should report his concerns about the welfare of another child to the Council if he has not already done so. The parent of that child would be welcome to approach us if he or she wished after first complaining to the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:

• There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation;
• We cannot investigate the actions of the teacher or the school; and
• We could not recommend disciplinary action against the teacher.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman