Teaching Regulation Agency

2. Ms U says the TRA:

• failed to follow its own published guidelines • did not refer Ms U’s case to a professional conduct panel • made a false claim relating to harassment • was not accountable and did not respond to her complaint fully.

3. The TRA caused Ms U prolonged psychological harm and reactivated trauma, including chronic stress and PTSD.

4. Ms U seeks the following outcomes:

• recognition of maladministration • a meaningful apology and recognition of harm caused • a review of the TRA’s decisions • assurance of learning and change • consideration of financial redress • the TRA to be made accountable for its actions.

5. Ms U submitted a complaint to the TRA on 19 January 2025 regarding its decision to close a teacher misconduct referral at the CTA stage. The TRA explained that the CTA decision maker had considered all the evidence Ms U provided and that the decision had been issued within five working days. The TRA said it made its decision in line with the guidance Teacher misconduct: disciplinary procedures.

6. Ms U remained dissatisfied and sent further correspondence to the TRA. In response, the TRA issued a further complaint reply on 20 May. It explained that on 14 March 2024 the referral had met the criteria for an investigation to commence in line with The Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012.

7. The TRA explained that as the case progressed and additional information became available, a CTA decision maker concluded that the available evidence did not support a finding that the alleged conduct met the threshold for unacceptable professional conduct, conduct that may bring the teaching profession into disrepute, or conviction of a relevant offence.

8. The TRA said it had considered the concerns raised by Ms U, including those relating to dishonesty, and that these matters had been investigated and reviewed as part of the CTA process. It explained that all relevant evidence had been considered when reaching the decision.

9. The TRA were satisfied Ms U’s concerns were appropriately considered in line with the guidance Teacher misconduct: the prohibition of teachers. It also said the CTA decision maker had considered safeguarding issues in line with Keeping children safe in education - GOV.UK.

10. Ms U remained dissatisfied and continued to correspond with the TRA. The TRA issued its final response on 18 June 2025. It explained that at the conclusion of the CTA stage, the decision maker’s role was to decide whether there was sufficient evidence for a professional conduct panel to make findings of unacceptable professional conduct, conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, or conviction of a relevant offence.

11. The TRA said it had considered all the evidence Ms U provided and had explained why the referral did not meet the threshold to proceed to a professional conduct panel. It also explained that it could not amend a CTA decision solely because a party disagreed with the outcome.

Ms U says the TRA failed to follow its own published guidelines and did not refer her case to a professional conduct panel

14. 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. Having done so, we have not found indications that the TRA failed to follow the relevant regulations, guidance, or process in this case.

15. Ms U says she understood the TRA’s earlier correspondence to suggest the concerns she raised were serious, and she was later dissatisfied when the TRA concluded that the available evidence did not meet the threshold for referral to a professional conduct panel. We understand why this caused frustration and distress for her.

16. We have seen that the TRA explained that, as additional information became available during the investigation, the CTA decision maker concluded that the available evidence did not support a finding that the alleged conduct met the threshold for unacceptable professional conduct, conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, or conviction of a relevant offence.

17. In its complaint responses, the TRA referred to the Teacher misconduct: disciplinary procedures and Regulation 5 of The Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, which state:

(4) The Secretary of State must consider all relevant evidence, representations and comments and decide whether the case should be—

(a)discontinued; or (b)considered by a professional conduct panel,

and must inform the teacher of such decision.

18. We have seen that the TRA considered the relevant regulations and published guidance when reaching its decision and explained the basis for that decision to Ms U.

19. We have not seen evidence the TRA failed to follow the applicable process at the CTA stage. We consider this was in line with our Principles of Good Administration, particularly being open and accountable, which state that public bodies should explain the reasons for their decisions and how those decisions were reached. We have seen that the TRA did this throughout its correspondence with Ms U.

Ms U complains the TRA made a false claim about her relating to harassment

20. We asked the TRA about Ms U’s concern that inaccurate allegations relating to harassment had been considered during the process. The TRA explained that the CTA decision maker considered evidence from both Ms U and the teacher as part of the overall assessment. Although the TRA did not address this point in detail within its complaint responses, we have seen evidence that the information formed part of the material considered during the decision-making process.

21. In providing this explanation, we consider that TRA acted in line with of Principles of Good Administration here - acting fairly and proportionately. This principle states that we expect public bodies treat people fairly and consistently. We consider that the TRA did this when it explained how it had reached its decision and considered all the evidence Ms U supplied. None the less, we understand why Ms U felt that her concerns had not been fully addressed.

Ms U says the TRA was not accountable and did not respond to her complaint fully.

22. Having considered the TRA’s complaint replies as well as the responses to Ms U’s concerns she raised we have not seen any indications that it was not accountable or that it did not fully respond to her complaint. This is because the TRA explained its decision and role in its complaint replies. Specifically, the TRA set out its role and position regarding the CTA stage in line with published guidelines and legislation and explained why the referral did not proceed to a professional conduct panel.

23. We have seen that the TRA acted in line with our Principles of Good Administration here – getting it right. This principle sets out that public bodies follow their own policy and procedural guidance, whether published or internal. We have seen that the TRA did this when responding to Ms U’s complaint.

24. We recognise this is not the outcome Ms U was hoping for and understand this decision will be disappointing for her. We would like to thank Ms U for bringing her concerns to us and hope this decision clearly explains how we reached our view.

1. We have carefully considered Ms U’s complaint about the Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA). We have not seen evidence that the TRA failed to follow the relevant regulations, guidance, or process when considering and closing the referral at the case to answer (CTA) stage. We recognise this decision caused Ms U significant distress.