Summary: Ms X complained how the Council’s Local Authority Designated Officer handled a safeguarding referral made about her. She also complained about the Council’s handling of her complaint. We find the Council at fault for not correctly following the Local Authority Designated Officer process and not communicating in an open and transparent way with Ms X during the investigation process. This caused Ms X uncertainty and distress. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X, make service improvements, and give Ms X an opportunity to respond to the allegations.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained that the Council’s Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) failed to ensure an allegation made against her was investigated fairly and impartially. She also complained about the Council’s handling of her complaint. She says it failed to investigate or address her concerns about the LADO process, and its response was late.
2. Ms X says the Council’s faults led to anxiety, distress and lost employment opportunities. She wants the Council to void the investigation and to remove any record of the investigation from all databases.

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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)
5. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).
6. 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

People in positions of trust

9. Government guidance sets out how organisations should deal with allegations or concerns about people who work with children. (Working together to safeguard children: a guide to inter-agency working to safeguard and promote the welfare of children, chapter 2).
10. Councils should designate an officer, or team of officers, to be involved in the management and oversight of allegations and concerns. The officer is known as the LADO.
11. Councils provide advice and guidance to employers and voluntary organisations on how to deal with allegations and concerns. Councils should ensure there are appropriate arrangements in place to liaise effectively with the police and other organisations to monitor the progress of cases and ensure they are dealt with as quickly as possible, consistent with a thorough and fair process.
12. In Westmorland and Furness, 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. The Council’s LADO procedure says that subject to restrictions on the information that can be shared, the employer should, as soon as possible, inform the accused person about the nature of the allegation, how enquiries will be conducted, and the possible outcomes if the allegations are proven.

What happened

14. This is an overview of events and is not intended to detail everything that happened.
15. In April 2024, Ms X made a whistleblowing complaint involving her employer. She then left her place of employment after submitting a grievance against the owner and another employee, Y. Her employer awarded her a settlement.
16. At the beginning of August, Y made a safeguarding referral about Ms X to the Council’s LADO. The LADO held an initial case discussion with Y on the same day.
17. Y held staff interviews at Ms X’s former workplace in mid-August as part of the investigation. The LADO appointed an officer within the Council’s Early Years Team to assist and attend interviews throughout the investigation.
18. The LADO held an initial allegations meeting at the beginning of September. Ms X’s previous employer attended the meeting, along with Y and the independent person from the Council’s Early Years Team.
19. A prospective employer contacted Ms X and said the LADO had made it aware of the safeguarding referral. The employer decided not to proceed with its job offer for Ms X.
20. The LADO made a police referral later that week, and alerted Ofsted to the safeguarding referral.
21. Ms X contacted the LADO to request information about the allegations. The LADO said they could not provide information about what the allegations were as the investigation was ongoing and had not been progressed to a stage where information could be shared with her. The LADO told Ms X that her previous employer would inform her of the allegations once they had sufficient details to seek her comments on them.
22. Ms X continued to contact the LADO on several occasions in September. She expressed concern the investigation would not be impartial or fair as she had made a grievance and whistleblowing complaint naming both the owner of her previous workplace and Y. She said there was a conflict of interest.
23. The LADO then contacted Ms X’s previous employer and advised that Ms X had a right to know of the allegations made against her once the police investigation was complete. They also asked for information about who would be responding to Ms X’s concerns.
24. The LADO also asked if the appointed investigator, Y, had been named in Ms X’s grievance. They said they were under the impression the grievance concerned the owner of the setting only, and no one had told them Y was involved. The employer replied and told the LADO that Y had not been involved or named in the grievance. It said it did not intend to invite comment on the allegations until the police reached a decision about whether the threshold for a criminal investigation was met. The police began its investigation at the end of September.
25. Ms X continued to contact the LADO for information about the allegations. She told the LADO her previous employer would not give her any information, and its solicitor told her that they had no obligation to do so while the police investigation was ongoing. The LADO contacted the employer and advised that it did not have to disclose the details while the police investigation was ongoing, but it should have advised her that allegations had been made.
26. The LADO responded to Ms X and told her there was some independence to her former employer’s investigation.
27. The police interviewed Ms X in November.
28. In the same month, Ms X complained to the Council about its handling of her investigation. She said the Council had not followed the correct safeguarding policies and there was a conflict of interest with the investigation.
29. The Council said it could not progress Ms X’s complaint due to police involvement.
30. In February 2025, the police concluded its case and told Ms X of the investigation outcome. There had been no finding of wrongdoing that met the criminal threshold. However, the police did tell the Council it had found evidence of malpractice by Ms X. The responsibility for the investigation was passed back to the employer.
31. Ms X contacted the LADO again throughout February to request updates on the ongoing investigation. She told the LADO her previous employer had not responded to her requests for information about the allegations or updates, nor had they responded to her Subject Access Request (SAR).
32. The LADO spoke with the previous employer and said it needed to respond to Ms X. The employer responded and said it had no plans to give Ms X any of the LADO’s documents. Ms X said her previous employer did not ever provide an update on the investigation or provide any detail about the allegations. The LADO did not give Ms X any information about the allegations of malpractice.
33. The Council issued its stage one complaint response later that month, which said it had followed the correct safeguarding procedures and said there was no evidence to show the investigation had been mishandled. It also stated a new manager at Ms X’s previous place of work completed the investigation with input from the police and said that combined with involvement of Ofsted, it considered the investigation fair and impartial. It also said Ms X had had the opportunity to share her views.
34. Ms X escalated her complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaint process. She said the police had determined the outcome of its investigation to be no further action as the allegations did not meet the criminal threshold. Ms X said the Council had still not informed her of the allegations, nor had it given her the opportunity to respond to them. She also highlighted that the employee the LADO had appointed to investigate was the employee she had named in her grievance.
35. Ms X complained to the Ombudsman in February 2025.
36. The Council issued its stage two response in March which maintained the investigation had been fair and impartial and had been completed by a senior manager at Ms X’s former workplace, not the owner. The investigation had also been overseen by an independent person which it appointed. The Council also said it was the correct process that she was not informed of the LADO referral prior to the police interview as this could have affected the investigation. However, it said that she had been informed of the LADO allegations after this point, and she had been given the opportunity to share her views.
37. The LADO sent Ms X the investigation closure letter in April. They said while the police had found the criminal allegations were unsubstantiated, on balance, the suitability and safeguarding allegations were substantiated. They confirmed a referral had been made to Ofsted and Disclosure and Barring Service.

Back to top

Analysis

38. I have reviewed correspondence between Ms X and the LADO between September 2024 and March 2025. Prior to the conclusion of the police investigation in February 2025, there is no fault in the LADO’s communication with Ms X. They explained to her that they could not disclose the nature of the allegations made against her as this would potentially compromise the police investigation. This is a reasonable position for the LADO to have taken. I can see that they did keep Ms X updated, as far as they considered suitable, from September 2024 to February 2025. The Council also clearly communicated to Ms X that it could not take any action or give her any information about the investigation until the police investigation had ended.
39. I understand Ms X is unhappy the LADO did not inform her of the allegations prior to September, and she only found out about the LADO referral from her prospective new employer, days before she was due to start a new position there. However, the LADO was not at fault for not informing Ms X of the investigation. The LADO’s procedure states it is the employer’s responsibility to share information with the accused person, and the timing is subject to restrictions on the information that can be shared.
40. The police informed the LADO that the allegations made against Ms X were unsubstantiated and did not meet the criminal threshold. The police did, however, also tell the LADO it had identified malpractice by Ms X. The Council failed to ensure the employer informed Ms X of the identified malpractice. It also failed to ensure that she was given an opportunity to respond to these allegations before it recorded the outcome and subsequently closed the investigation in April.
41. While the LADO does not investigate, they are responsible for ensuring the investigation is conducted thoroughly and fairly. The Council’s LADO procedure states that the employer should tell the accused person about the allegation, (subject to restriction). It also says the accused member of staff should be treated “fairly, honestly and helped to understand the concerns expressed and processes involved”.
42. Ms X highlighted numerous times to the LADO after the police investigation ended that her previous employer refused to engage with her or tell her what the allegations were. She told the LADO she did not feel the investigation was impartial due to the prior grievance. The LADO therefore knew she had not given an opportunity to comment on the allegations of malpractice when it closed the case. After the police investigation, there were no restrictions that would have prevented the employer from informing Ms X of these allegations. Since the LADO is involved in the management of allegations, it is at fault for failing to ensure the employer spoke to Ms X following the closure of the police’s investigation, and for not ensuring she was given an opportunity to comment on the allegations of malpractice.
43. This fault caused Ms X an injustice since she not only remained uncertain about the remaining allegations made against her, but also about what the outcome of the LADO’s investigation would have been had she been given the opportunity to comment. I am aware that Ms X was given an opportunity to provide her views on some of the allegations during the police investigation, which appears to have heavily informed the LADO outcome. However, she was not given an opportunity to comment on the allegations of malpractice before the LADO closed the referral, which caused her significant distress.

The LADO’s consideration of a fair and impartial investigation

44. I have seen an email that shows, in response to Ms X’s concerns about the impartiality of the investigation, the LADO asking whether Y was named in the grievance alongside Ms X’s former employer. The owner of the business replied to this email and said Y was not named in the grievance.
45. However, I have seen a copy of the grievance and this is not correct. Y was clearly named in the grievance. Although the Council initially took action in trying to establish who was involved, it did not take extra steps to determine what it had been told was true. Ms X had raised this concern numerous times, including as part of her formal complaint to the Council, and the Council still did not ask to see a copy of the grievance. Had it asked for this it would have seen that Y was named and would have been able to make an informed decision about whether, as a result, the investigation was impartial and fair. That it did not do so is fault.
46. I understand Ms X believes the Council should have employed an independent investigator to conduct the investigation. The LADO did appoint an independent person from its Early Years Team, who attended interviews and assisted Y to ensure impartiality. There was also substantial police involvement in the process, which the LADO used to inform the outcome.
47. I am not therefore satisfied, given the extensive involvement from other bodies, and the assistance of an independent person, the decision to include Y has caused Ms X a significant injustice.

The Council’s complaint handling

48. Ms X also told me the LADO’s complaint response to her in November 2024 was delayed. However, this was due to the ongoing police investigation, so I do not find fault here.
49. Ms X also raised concerns about the fairness of the LADO’s investigation due to the grievance. I have not seen evidence that the Council addressed this in its complaint response. This is fault, which compounds the uncertainty and distress for Ms X since she could not be sure the fairness of the investigation was properly considered either during or after the investigation.

Back to top

Action

50. Within one month the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise to Ms X for the uncertainty and distress caused by the identified fault.
2. Issue a reminder to relevant staff involved with LADO safeguarding referrals that in line with its safeguarding procedure, they should ensure the employer “inform(s) the accused person about the nature of the allegation, how enquiries will be conducted, and the possible outcomes if the allegations are proven” before an investigation outcome is issued.
3. Arrange for Ms X to be spoken to and given the opportunity to respond to the allegations. Once her comments have been received, the Council should reconsider its previous decision to record a ‘substantiated’ outcome and write to Ms X with its decision.
51. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

52. There was fault by the Council, which caused Ms X an injustice. The Council has accepted my recommendations and so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman