The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct and decision of the Local Authority Designated Officer for safeguarding. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant investigation.
The complaint
Mrs X said the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) for safeguarding wrongly substantiated a safeguarding concern against him. He said they instructed a school to refer him to the Teacher Regulation Agency (TRA), despite the school not having upheld any allegations against him.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The duty of a LADO is to safeguard children by reducing risk, not to establish the guilt or innocence of a person against whom a complaint is made. That a school does not uphold an allegation made against a teacher does not oblige a LADO to find a matter is unsubstantiated.
As the given reason for the LADO substantiating the concern was that it was not the first time that concerns had been raised about Mr X, I asked for the original evidence in confidence. The Council supplied this. It showed there had been concerns about Mr X’s actions in classrooms raised by other schools going back several years. The LADO’s decision was therefore one they could reach on the evidence available.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman