Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) handling of Mrs X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s action to justify an investigation. Other school and personnel matters are outside our remit.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the school did not follow proper procedures after she made safeguarding disclosures. She says the LADO referred the case back to the Head Teacher, the same person she had raised concerns about, and that he involved the Chair of Governors. She says the investigation was fraudulent. Mrs X says the school suspended her on false allegations and targeted her after she reported safeguarding concerns about the Head Teacher.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. 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)
4. We cannot investigate a complaint if it is about a personnel issue. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5a, paragraph 4, as amended)
5. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as schools. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mrs X was an employee of the school she complains about, where she raised safeguarding concerns about the Head Teacher around the time the school began a disciplinary investigation into her.
9. The Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) reviewed Mrs X’s safeguarding disclosures and decided they did not meet the statutory threshold for LADO involvement, so no strategy meeting was needed.
10. The LADO explained they do not investigate allegations directly and do not take self‑referrals. The school therefore dealt with the concerns under its own procedures rather than through LADO processes.
11. The Council confirmed the school appointed an external investigator with no prior relationship to the school. This shows the investigation was not led by the Head Teacher as Mrs X alleges.
12. The LADO’s role was limited to providing safeguarding advice and recording the school’s outcome. This approach follows statutory guidance.
13. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of schools. We can only look at whether the Council acted correctly in carrying out its administrative functions.
14. Based on the evidence, the Council appears to have followed the correct process. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault.
15. Personnel and disciplinary issues are employment matters. The Ombudsman cannot investigate those issues.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Other school and personnel matters are outside our remit.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman