Teaching Regulation Agency

3. Mr A complains about the service he received from the Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA). He complains that:

• The TRA has taken his case forward to a professional conduct panel on the basis of a flawed investigation, which included serious factual errors and fabrications, and relies solely on uncorroborated, contradictory or demonstrably false statements. It did this without challenging claims made by the school against him.

• The TRA failed to respond substantively to his evidence and rebuttals and its decision does not align with the guidance ‘Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession’ or the ‘Prohibition of Teachers’ • The TRA failed to address procedural and evidential misconduct of its caseworker or explain the role of other individuals in overseeing the matter.

4. Mr A explained that the claimed failings by the TRA have caused serious reputational, emotional, and financial harm.

5. He remains unable to work until the case is resolved, and the lack of transparency andprocedural integrity has left him severely distressed.

6. The time taken by the TRA to deal with this matter, and the absence of due process has compounded the personal impact of the original school investigation.

7. By bringing the complaint to PHSO, Mr A is seeking for PHSO to recommend a review and retraction of the Case to Answer (CTA) decision.

8. He is seeking a formal explanation for the errors the have occurred during these events, and a formal apology from the TRA, in which it acknowledges these failings. He also wants to see the TRA provide a statement addressing the significant flaws in the school’s evidence.

9. Mr A has been the subject of a TRA investigation, the result of which was to refer his case to a disciplinary panel.

10. Mr A disagreed with the decision to refer him and says the evidence against him did not meet the threshold for referral.

Decision to Refer

13. Mr A complains that the TRA took the decision to refer his case forward to a professional conduct panel. He says this was done based on a flawed investigation, which included serious factual errors and fabrications, and relies solely on uncorroborated, contradictory or demonstrably false statements. He explained that it did this without challenging claims made by the school against him.

14. Mr A told us his complaint expressly includes the Case to Answer (CTA) decision itself, not merely the fact that a panel has been convened. He argues that the CTA rationale contains clear factual errors, internal inconsistencies, and misstatements of evidence, including assertions that are not supported by the evidence and, in some instances, are demonstrably false. He maintains that these are regulatory decision-making errors, not matters reserved for a panel’s fact-finding role

15. This includes, according to Mr A, the TRA failed to validate a school investigation which it knew to be defective.

16. At the time of the CTA decision, Mr A told us the TRA had before it evidence confirming that the school’s investigation processes were already acknowledged as procedurally defective and failing. He says that this was not speculative, and that it was documented within the material before the TRA.

17. He complains that the TRA did not explain how it validated, relied upon, or reconciled that investigation when deciding there was a case to answer.

.

18. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the organisation has got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen. We have done this and have not found any indications that something has gone wrong.

19. We must first begin by explaining that the TRA’s role is not to decide whether the allegations against Mr A are proven. Its role is simply to decide whether, based on the evidence, there is enough to put the matter before the panel (who make the final decision).

20. During our own investigation, Mr A informed us on 19 February 2026 that the Professional Conduct Panel (PCP) had convened and upheld all of the allegations against him.

21. Panel decisions are subject to appeal to the High Court and are therefore out of remit (the High Court can also take a view on the extent to which the panel carried out its independent duty - that its purpose after all).

22. While we appreciate that Mr A was not asking us to look at the Panel’s decision, but rather how the TRA judge the evidence to warrant passing on, the fact that this has now been upheld changes matters.

23. In terms of the complaint he brings to PHSO, the fact the Panel found against him backs up the TRA's discretionary decision that there was sufficient evidence to put the case before the panel in the first place.

24. This would be an indication that it was not a case of maladministration for them to refer the case, but even if Mr A disagrees with this, the place to challenge this would lie with the court, where he can put his case forward, and not with PHSO

Failure to Respond or Correctly Follow Guidance

25. Mr A complains that the TRA failed to respond substantively to his evidence and rebuttals. TRA’s decision does not align with the guidance documents ‘Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession’ or the ‘Prohibition of Teachers’

26. He explained that the evidence bundle contains clear factual material supporting his account and undermining the allegations. He told us the TRA failed to engage with this material in any meaningful or reasoned way, instead asserting that evidential disputes should simply be left to a panel, without first meeting its own regulatory obligation to assess reliability and sufficiency at the CTA stage.

27. He explained the CTA rationale contains false assertions and mischaracterisation of the evidence, alongside inconsistent positions as to whether the TRA had tested the evidence at all.

28. At points, Mr A claims, the TRA asserted that evidence was assessed and supported the allegations; elsewhere, it states that evidential reliability is a matter entirely for the panel. His complains that these contradictions show there was an absence of a coherent and transparent evidence-based methodology behind the decision.

29. In a letter dated 30 December 2024, the TRA acknowledged that Mr A had highlighted concerns with the evidence obtained, particularly that it was not vetted by the TRA.

30. The TRA referred to the UK Government guidance ‘Teacher misconduct: disciplinary procedures’. This provides Guidance on the teacher misconduct regulatory system and disciplinary procedures.

31. The TRA points to the fact the guidance says it must consider all referrals it receives and decide whether to investigate. This is referred to as the initial assessment stage. At the initial assessment stage, the TRA explained it does not validate or test the evidence, nor does it determine whether the allegations are proven. It only considers if the allegations at their highest could result in unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that could bring the profession into disrepute.

32. In Mr A’s case, based on the referral, it was decided that a formal investigation should commence to gather relevant information. It also points to the fact that Mr A was provided with the opportunity to respond to the allegations, and that at this point he had highlighted his concerns regarding the evidence. It explained that this would be considered by the decision maker.

33. The initial investigation decision was provided on 8 January 2025. It listed the allegations against Mr A, and the Decision Maker (DM) provided their reasoning for concluding that the TRA has authority to consider the case.

34. The decision outlined the evidence, and noted that Mr A had disputed it, in particular outlining that the statements from the students are unreliable on the basis that they are “anonymous, riddled with contradictions, flawed and evidently false.”

35. It noted that Mr A explained that students had misinterpreted his offer for them to attend the schools easter revision programme as private tutoring and that he denies the allegations on the basis that they are unreliable and untrue.

36. It explained that resolving such a dispute is a matter for the Professional Conduct Panel (PCP). It explained Mr A’s options as:

37. “Resolving your case at a professional conduct panel meeting. If you admit the allegations, you can ask to have your case considered in private without a hearing. This is referred to as a professional conduct panel meeting. Meetings usually lead to a quicker decision, and you will not be expected to attend when your case is considered. You will be given the opportunity to make representations in writing, including on any mitigating factors and whether a prohibition order is appropriate. All professional conduct panel meetings are to be held virtually via Microsoft Teams subject to any reasonable adjustments, or technological issues. From 31 January 2022, the outcome of the meeting will not be announced in public. This is subject to any case where it would be in the overriding public interest to make the decision available to the public at the earliest opportunity. This does not affect the requirement to publish the decision of the Secretary of State in accordance with Regulation 15 of The Teacher’s Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012. As with a hearing, notice of this hearing will appear on the GOV.UK website approximately 2 weeks before it commences, and if the panel make a finding, the decision of the Secretary of State will be published on GOV.UK.

38. Resolving your case at a professional conduct panel hearing. The time it takes to prepare a case for a hearing depends on its complexity and the number of witnesses to be called. Once the case is prepared, the TRA will give you at least 10 weeks’ notice of the hearing date. However, you can opt to have a shorter notice period by indicating this on the form enclosed. Professional conduct panel hearings will be held virtually by default however you can request for the hearing to be held in person and you can do so via the enclosed form. Please note that if you select to have your case heard in person, unless there is a strong, overriding public interest consideration to hold the hearing virtually, the TRA will list your case for an in person hearing. If the request for an in person hearing is disputed, this will be put to a professional conduct panel for consideration. Professional conduct panel hearings are conducted in public, and members of the press and public may attend virtually or in person. If the panel make a finding, the Secretary of State for Education’s decision will be published on GOV.UK.”

39. Following this, Mr A Ased a request for his formal complaint to be escalated, and the TRA provided a response on 22 January 2025, where it upheld the Case to Answer (CTA) decision. Little detail was given regarding the reasons and advise was provided to Mr A that he may wish to seek independent legal advice.

40. Mr A was dissatisfied with this and again asked for his complaint to be escalated. A further response was provided on 5 August 2025. The TRA again pointed to the previously discussed guidance on disciplinary procedures, reiterated its argument that it if for the PCP to consider the weight of the evidence (including Mr A’s challenges).

41. A further, broadly similar, response was given on 9 January 2026. It noted that his submissions would be considered by the PCP.

42. We appreciate that Mr A felt very strongly that his case should not have progressed and that his evidence was not being properly considered. Ultimately though, the TRA was correct to advise that its role was to make the referral and that it is for the panel to make the decision, and this is in line with the guidance that the TRA pointed to. We can see no indication of maladministration here.

Failure to Address Misconduct

43. Mr A complains that the TRA failed to address procedural and evidential misconduct of its caseworker or explain the role of other individuals in overseeing the matter.

44. As with the previous point, the PCP would be the appropriate place to address this, which makes it a matter not for PHSO to consider further.

1. We have carefully considered Mr A’s complaint about The Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA). We recognise this has been a difficult process for Mr A and would like to thank him for bringing this matter to our attention.

2. For each of the three points Mr A has raised, based upon the evidence reviewed we have seen no indication that anything went wrong, and could not find indications of maladministration or service failure on the part of the TRA.