Summary: there is no fault in the involvement of the LADO following an allegation Mr T acted in a way which put children at risk of harm.

The complaint

1. Mr T complains about the involvement of the LADO, a Council officer responsible for coordinating investigations of allegations against people who work with children, following a referral by the school where he worked.
2. He alleges the disciplinary hearing held by the school was flawed. He complains the LADO denied him the opportunity to challenge the school's findings.
3. Mr T alleges the LADO's involvement resulted in incorrect information being recorded by the Disclosure and Barring Service which prevented him securing another teaching job.

Back to top

What I have investigated

4. I have investigated the LADO’s role in coordinating the investigation. I have not investigated the allegations themselves. This is the school’s job. The Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints about the actions of the school.
5. The investigation is confidential. Mr T is not entitled to see the papers. Further, the Ombudsman must not disclose any details which could identify Mr T when we publish our final decision on his complaint. For these reasons, I have not referred to any details of the incident itself.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

6. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. If we are satisfied with a council’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)
7. We cannot investigate a complaint if it is about a personnel issue. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5a, paragraph 4, as amended)
8. We cannot investigate complaints about what happens in schools. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 5(b), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I have considered:
• information provided by Mr T;
• information provided by the Council, including the papers from the process overseen by the LADO; and
• Working together to safeguard children, guidance published by the Department for Education in 2018.
10. I invited Mr T and the Council to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

11. Mr T was a teacher at a primary school.
12. There was an incident at school in July 2018. The school’s head teacher referred the matter to the LADO. The LADO (Local Authority Designated Officer) is a Council officer responsible for coordinating investigations of allegations against people who work with children.
13. The LADO chaired a meeting which considered information provided by the school. This included statements from the children involved in the incident, staff at the school, Mr T, and video footage of the incident itself. The meeting decided Mr T had acted in a way which put the children at risk.
14. The school’s disciplinary hearing made a separate finding of misconduct. Mr T no longer works for the school.
15. Mr T disputes the evidence on which the school reached its view. He has complained to the School and the Ombudsman.

Allegations against people who work with children

16. Government guidance says councils should designate a particular officer, or team of officers, “to be involved in the management and oversight of allegations against people who work with children.” (Working together to safeguard children, Department for Education 2018, Chapter 2, paragraph 5) The officer is known as the LADO.
17. The Norfolk Safeguarding Children Board has published detailed guidance to explain the LADO’s role. The guidance is available on the Board’s website.
18. In Norfolk, 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.

Mr T’s complaint

19. Mr T complains about the information presented by the school to the meeting chaired by the LADO to discuss the allegations he had acted in a way which put children at risk. In particular, he complains:
• the head teacher gave inaccurate information about his actions, and in particular whether he had obtained permission for an activity before undertaking it;
• the pupils’ statements were written after the children had an opportunity to discuss the incident; and
• the head teacher exaggerated the seriousness of the incident.
20. Mr T complains he was not given an opportunity to produce video evidence of the incident.
21. In his complaint to the Ombudsman, Mr T placed great emphasis on school procedures which he believes undermine the head teacher’s claim he acted without permission when undertaking the activity. He says it would have been impossible for him to have undertaken the activity without others knowing about it.

Consideration

22. The Ombudsman does not decide whether Mr T acted in a way which put children at risk of harm. This is the job of the meeting chaired by the LADO. The school is responsible for undertaking the investigation and any disciplinary action against Mr T. The Ombudsman cannot consider complaints about the school. My job is to check the LADO oversaw the process in line with the procedures published on the Norfolk Safeguarding Children Board website.
23. I have carefully considered the records provided by the LADO, including the minutes of the meeting which discussed the allegations and decided Mr T had acted in a way which put children at risk of harm.
24. It is clear from the minutes of the meeting that:
• the question of whether Mr T had permission for the activity did not play a role in the decision he had acted in a way which put children at risk of harm. It may have played a part in the school’s own disciplinary proceedings, but these do not form part of my investigation. The Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints about personnel matters or the actions of schools;
• the meeting was aware the pupils’ statements were not taken immediately after the incident and considered the implications of this before reaching a decision;
• the video evidence Mr T refers to was played at the meeting; and
• the nature, and in particular the ‘severity’ of the incident was discussed in detail. The facts presented at the meeting are the same as those Mr T gave in his complaint to the Ombudsman. His complaint the head teacher exaggerated the severity of the incident is not borne out by the minutes.
25. The evidence satisfies me there was no fault in the meeting convened by the LADO to discuss the allegations. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions taken without fault.
26. Mr T complains the LADO's involvement resulted in incorrect information being recorded by the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) which prevented him securing another teaching job. The LADO reported the outcome of the meeting to the Police. I have seen the email sent by the LADO and I am satisfied it is accurate. There is no fault by the Council. Mr T’s employer, the school, has a duty to report certain incidents to Ofsted and the DBS. However, the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints about the school.

Back to top

Final decision

27. I have ended my investigation. There is no fault in the involvement of the LADO, and the Ombudsman cannot question decisions taken without fault. The Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints about Mr T’s employer, the school.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman