Summary: There was no fault by the Council, in its handling of referrals it received about child safeguarding issues. We have therefore completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainant as Mrs W.
2. Mrs W complains the Council did not follow the relevant statutory processes when it received a child safeguarding referral about her, which was ultimately closed without further action. In particular, she says:

• the Council delayed providing information to the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS);
• the local authority designated officer (LADO) was also working for the education provider which made the safeguarding referral, creating a conflict of interest;
• the LADO did not hold any meetings to discuss the allegations;
• the Council did not disclose some information she requested under a subject access request (SAR); and
• the Council delayed responding to a complaint Mrs W made in December 2022.

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. 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(i), as amended)
4. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have investigated the first three points of Mrs W’s complaint, as listed in paragraph 1.
7. I have not investigated the fourth point, that the Council’s did not disclose information she requested under an SAR. This is because the ICO is generally better placed to consider such complaints. The ICO also has powers of enforcement which we do not.
8. I have also not investigated the fifth and final point, about a delay by the Council in responding to an earlier complaint by Mrs W. This is because I consider Mrs W should reasonably have been aware of the Council’s alleged failure to respond more than 12 months before she eventually approached the Ombudsman, in March 2024. This means her complaint is late, and as there is no evidence to suggest Mrs W could not have complained sooner, I have no grounds to disapply the law and accept it for investigation.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I reviewed Mrs W’s correspondence with the Council, and sought the Council’s clarification on several points.

Back to top

What I found

10. The following will give only a brief overview of the key events relevant to this complaint. It is not intended to provide an exhaustive chronology.
11. Mrs W was working as the headteacher of a specialist school. Between December 2021 and January 2023, a series of concerns and complaints about her conduct were made by different parties. These were referred to the Council’s LADO as possible child safeguarding issues, but in each case the LADO decided the alleged conduct did not reach the threshold for formal safeguarding enquiries.
12. At the end of January 2023 the Council commissioned a safeguarding audit at the school. On the following day, Mrs W resigned from her post as headteacher without notice.
13. Several months later a referral was made to the DBS. The DBS asked the Council to provide a report about Mrs W as part of its consideration, with a target date of 30 November 2023. The Council provided the report on 12 December. A week later the DBS decided to take no further action on the allegations against Mrs W.
14. On 23 January 2024 Mrs W submitted a stage 1 complaint to the Council. She explained the DBS’s decision and noted the Council’s LADO had “supported” the referral, which she said had had a detrimental impact on her. Mrs W complained the Council had not provided some information she had requested as part of an SAR, and that it had also not provided information requested by the DBS.
15. Mrs W asked the Council to provide copies of the ‘managing allegations meetings’ for each of the allegations which had been made against her, and the “LADO communication informing [her] of these allegations”. Mrs W also said the LADO had been “sourcing private consultancy work” with the school and asked for this to be investigated.
16. Mrs W also complained she had made a previous complaint about Council staff in December 2022 but had never received a response.
17. The Council responded on 8 February. It said it had sent the information Mrs W had requested in her SAR in September, and that it had sent its report to the DBS on 12 December, but acknowledged this was late and apologised for it. The Council said it had never held any LADO meetings about the allegations, and so there were no meeting minutes or other documents to disclose.
18. The Council explained the LADO’s alleged ‘private consultancy’ work with the school was in her role as the safeguarding adviser. It also explained it had responded to Mrs W’s previous complaint on 30 January 2023.
19. Mrs W submitted a stage 2 complaint on 10 February. She complained there had been a lack of process by the LADO and said this had had a financial and emotional impact on her. Mrs W explained that she had been unable to find work in the education sector while the DBS referral was pending, resulting in loss of earnings.
20. Mrs W requested apologies both from the Council and personally from the LADO, that the Council commission a review of all live safeguarding enquiries to ensure they were being managed in accordance with the statutory guidance, and compensation for loss of earnings.
21. The Council replied on 11 March. It said it had already apologised for the short delay in providing information to the DBS, and reiterated it had never held any LADO meetings to discuss the allegations against Mrs W. It explained the LADO no longer worked for the Council, but said it would not have agreed to Mrs W’s request for a personal apology from her anyway. The Council said it would also not be conducting a review of its LADO enquiries.
22. Because the Council had not upheld Mrs W’s complaint, it said it did not consider it appropriate to offer Mrs W any compensation.
23. Mrs W then referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 20 March.

Back to top

Legislative background

24. Every council should have an officer, or team of officers, to manage and oversee allegations against people who work with children. These officers are known as local authority designated officers (LADOs).
25. LADOs provide advice and guidance to employers and voluntary organisations on dealing with allegations against employees or volunteers. They should ensure relevant agencies share information. They should also monitor the progress of cases and ensure allegations are dealt with consistently, fairly and without delay.

Back to top

Analysis

26. I will address each of the three points of Mrs W’s complaint I am investigating separately and in turn.

The Council delayed providing information to the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS)

27. Mrs W complains the Council delayed providing information to the DBS, which in turn delayed the DBS’s decision to take no further action on the referral. This meant she was unable to gain employment in the education sector between September and December 2023, resulting in a loss of income of more than £10,000. Mrs W considers the Council should offer her compensation for this loss.
28. I have reviewed correspondence between Mrs W, the DBS and the Council. It makes clear the Council had agreed to provide the information requested by the DBS by the end of November; and that the Council eventually did so on 12 December. The Council has acknowledged this was late, but says it was delayed because it was undergoing an OFSTED inspection, which it had told the DBS at the time.
29. While I accept the Council was late in providing the information, on balance I do not consider a delay of 12 days to be so significant as to amount to fault. Even if I did consider it to be fault, I am not persuaded this brief delay can be said to have caused the loss of earnings Mrs W claims.
30. And in fact, even if the delay had been much more significant, I would not be persuaded the Council was responsible for Mrs W’s alleged loss of earnings anyway. I understand Mrs W disputes the allegations against her, but it was not the Council which made the allegations. And, while the Council has a duty to give proper scrutiny to any allegation it receives, in this case it did not consider any of the allegations reached the threshold to initiate formal enquiries.
31. Nor was the Council responsible for Mrs W’s decision to resign her post in February 2023 – which, more than any other factor here, appears to be the reason she then experienced a loss of earnings.
32. I also note the DBS told Mrs W there were no restrictions on her engaging in regulated activity while the referral was pending anyway, albeit I can see one potential employer told her it would not offer her work until a separate Teaching Regulation Agency referral was concluded. However, again, I do not see how the Council can reasonably be held responsible for this.
33. I find no fault in this element of Mrs W’s complaint.

The LADO was also working for the education provider which made the safeguarding referral, creating a conflict of interest

34. Mrs W alleges the LADO was undertaking private consultancy work for the school, creating a conflict of interest.
35. The Council has explained that, at the time, the LADO also held the role of safeguarding adviser for schools; and that her involvement in the allegations against Mrs W was in fact in this role, rather than that of LADO. The Council says the LADO was not employed by the school.
36. I understand Mrs W has not accepted the Council’s explanation. However, I am conscious she has not provided any meaningful evidence at all to support her claim the LADO was working privately for the school – she has merely said another member of staff at the school told her so. This is hearsay and of very limited value as evidence. This being so, I consider the Council’s response is adequate to address this element of Mrs W’s complaint.
37. I find no fault in this element of Mrs W’s complaint.

The LADO did not hold any meetings to discuss the allegations

38. Mrs W complains the Council did not hold any LADO meetings to discuss the allegations against her, which she says is a breach of the statutory guidance ‘Keeping Children Safe in Education’.
39. The Council has explained the LADO did not consider that any of the allegations against Mrs W was sufficiently serious to meet the threshold for formal enquiries. As a result, no such meeting was held and no associated minutes or other documents exist.
40. It is for the Council to decide whether an allegation reaches the threshold for formal enquiries. I have reviewed the LADO’s responses to the allegations as they were made, and I am satisfied there is no reason to criticise her decisions. Therefore there is no evidence of fault here.
41. Even if there were fault, however, I do not see what possible injustice there could be to Mrs W from this. She was the subject of the allegations; so if the Council had wrongly not taken them seriously, this would be to her benefit, not to her detriment.
42. I find no fault in this element of Mrs W’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

43. I have completed my investigation with a finding of no fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman