Summary: The Council was not at fault for how it handled allegations made against Mr X, a teacher, by a child at his school. It followed correct procedure and allowed Mr X a fair opportunity to provide representations in support of his case.

The complaint

1. Mr X – a teacher – complains about the Council’s oversight of a multi-agency investigation into allegations made against him by a student.
2. Mr X says:
• Decisions made during the Council’s final meeting (to review the investigation) were based on an inaccurate, biased Police investigation (for which the Police had apologised).
• In advance of the final meeting, he provided witness statements from education professionals and from parents of other children, as well as other evidence which was ‘completely overlooked’.
• He was not informed of the final meeting date. This meant that, following a successful complaint to the Police about how it had conducted its investigation, he was unable to provide further representations supporting his case. As a consequence, decisions in the meeting were made without all relevant information being heard.
• The Police and the school, his employer, manipulated the investigative process. He is generally dissatisfied with how the school dealt with the case.
• The DBS decided not to bar him from working with children, and the CPS took no further action. Despite this, and no evidence against him, the allegations against him were incorrectly substantiated.

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 a council made its decision. If there was no fault in how the council made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as the Police. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34(1), as amended)
6. We cannot investigate most complaints about what happens in schools. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 5(2), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

7. A large part of Mr X’s complaint is about information provided to the Council by the Police, which, he felt, was either inaccurate or biased. This is a matter to be addressed with the Police, who are outside our jurisdiction.
8. Another significant part of the complaint is about how the school dealt with Mr X and how it contributed to the allegation management process. The school is also outside our jurisdiction.
9. I have only investigated the actions of the Council in relation to Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant policy and guidance.
11. Mr 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

Policy and guidance

12. Every council should have an officer, or team of officers, to manage and oversee allegations against people who work with children. These officers are routinely referred to as local authority designated officers (LADOs). (Working together to safeguard children 2023)
13. LADOs provide advice and guidance to employers and voluntary organisations on dealing with allegations against employees or volunteers. They should ensure information is shared effectively between relevant agencies. They should also monitor the progress of cases and should ensure cases are dealt with consistently, fairly and without delay. (Working together to safeguard children 2023)
14. The Council’s LADO does not have direct communication with, or provide support to, the person subject of the allegation. (Norfolk Safeguarding Children Partnership Online Procedures)
15. The final LADO meeting is held to decide the outcome of the allegation. It is the employer’s responsibility to ensure that the views of the person subject of the allegation are obtained and represented in the final meeting. It is also the employer’s responsibility to share the outcome of the process with them. (Norfolk Safeguarding Children Partnership Online Procedures)
16. In the final meeting, the LADO will give clear direction about the options available when deciding on the outcome. Each meeting participant will make an informed professional decision based on the balance of probabilities. (Norfolk Safeguarding Children Partnership Online Procedures)
17. The LADO has the deciding adjudication if there is a split decision, or if they do not believe the decision was appropriate, fair, or proportionate. (Norfolk Safeguarding Children Partnership Online Procedures)

What happened

18. After Mr X was subject to allegations by a student, the Council’s LADO oversaw the subsequent investigations carried out by the school and the Police.
19. Part of the Council’s oversight involved holding allegation management meetings. The final meeting (to decide the outcome) was due to be held in January 2025. But it was postponed until March, because Mr X had made a complaint about a Police officer involved in the criminal investigation.
20. Mr X provided his representations and character references prior to the postponed meeting in January. He has also sent these documents to us.
21. Mr X’s complaint with the Police was resolved in early March. They apologised to him for the way an officer had spoken to witnesses. However, they decided this had not made a difference to the outcome. They also decided there was no need to re-interview the witnesses.
22. The Police provided information to the Council’s LADO about Mr X’s complaint, and about the outcome, in advance of the final meeting.
23. The LADO then convened the postponed final meeting. The record of the meeting says:
• All attendees had been given Mr X’s representations and associated character references.
• These documents were referred to in the meeting.
• The Police officer about whom Mr X had complained did not attend the meeting.
• After discussion of the allegations, the LADO provided attendees with definitions of the outcomes available to them.
• Attendees unanimously decided that all three allegations under consideration were ‘substantiated’.
• The LADO raised no objections with way the attendees had decided the outcomes of the allegations.
24. After the school sent the outcome of the meeting to Mr X, he complained to the Council. He said he had not been informed of the date of the final LADO meeting, so he had been unable to provide written representations and witness statements.
25. The Council responded, saying the school did not tell Mr X about the rearranged meeting because they felt he had already had the opportunity to provide his representations prior to the postponed meeting in January. These representations were then considered during the rearranged meeting.

My findings

26. The Council’s safeguarding procedures make clear that the school, not the LADO, was responsible for telling Mr X about the date of the final meeting. The LADO had no role in direct communication with Mr X at all. Any failure to communicate with him about this is a matter to be addressed with the school, and did not amount to fault by the Council.
27. In any event, I have reviewed the documents Mr X has provided and note that he had the opportunity to provide his representations and several character references in advance of the meeting – but two months prior, not immediately prior. These documents were discussed at length during the final meeting, so I do not agree with Mr X’s view that they were overlooked.
28. I appreciate that Mr X feels he could have provided further representations. But he had already had an opportunity to provide information to support his case. And the only relevant development between the original date of the meeting and the rearranged date was the conclusion of his complaint to the Police, which the LADO was given details about (including the outcome and the reasons for it).
29. There is no reason to conclude that this matter obviously put Mr X at a significant disadvantage, or that it was decisive to the outcome of the allegation management process.
30. Ultimately, the decisions made to substantiate the allegations against Mr X were made unanimously by the professional attendees of the final meeting, who were representatives of the Police and the school. There was a significant amount of information available to them in making those decisions (which was not limited to that provided by the Police). And I have no power to consider the actions of people who do not work for the Council.
31. The LADO did have the power to overrule those professionals if she did not believe the decisions were fair. But she had no objections to the decisions and therefore had no reason to overrule them. Her views on the allegations were a matter of professional opinion, which – in the absence of any other fault by the Council – I have no power to question.
32. I have, therefore, found no fault in how the Council oversaw the handling of the allegations against Mr X.

Back to top

Decision

33. The Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman