Get Started

Allegations Policy UK

>>Download Here<<


anzuk Education follow strict standards in order to ensure that all candidates that we supply to our clients areof the highest professional and personal calibre. As part of our standards, we follow Safer Recruitmentguidance before placing candidates into any workplace but especially those where children and adults at riskmay be present. We also take seriously any concerns raised regarding our staff and our candidates.

This policy gives details of what action we will take when such concerns are raised with us and should beraised alongside our Safeguarding Policy, Complaints Policy, Safer Recruitment policy and Whistleblowing policy.

Scope of the Policy

This policy applies to anyone employed by anzuk Education including our Directors, staff, and any workplacement/volunteers/ or registered with us as a candidate.

The legislation and statutory guidance used to draft this policy covers England and where candidates arelocated elsewhere in the UK, additional guidance may need to be considered. The main statutory guidance fororganisations working in the education sector is Keeping Children Safe in Education 2023 (England) andKeeping Learners Safe 2022 (Wales). For all other sectors, it is Working Together to Safeguard Children 2018.

Any member of staff or candidate who wishes to raise a concern regarding their conditions at work (orsimilar) should do so through the Company Grievance procedures.

Any organisation or service wishing to complain about our services, or the suitability/capacity of anycandidate placed with them should do so under the Complaints procedure.

Concerns that do not meet the allegations threshold: Low-level concerns

anzuk Education recognises the importance of ensuring that all concerns, including those which do not meetthe harms threshold (see section 4 below) are shared responsibly, with the right person and recorded anddealt with appropriately. This is to facilitate a culture of openness, trust and transparency where the clearvalues and expected behaviours set out in our staff code of conduct are constantly lived, monitored and reinforced by all staff.

Concerns that do not meet the allegations threshold: Low-level concerns

anzuk Education recognises the importance of ensuring that all concerns, including those which do not meetthe harms threshold (see section 4 below) are shared responsibly, with the right person and recorded anddealt with appropriately. This is to facilitate a culture of openness, trust and transparency where the clearvalues and expected behaviours set out in our staff code of conduct are constantly lived, monitored andreinforced by all staff.

A low-level concern is any concern, no matter how small and even if no more than a ‘nagging doubt’, that anadult working in or on behalf of the school or college may have acted in a way that:

  • is inconsistent with the staff code of conduct, including inappropriate conduct outside of work; and;
  • does not meet the allegations threshold or is otherwise not considered serious enough to consider areferral to the LADO.

Examples of such behaviour could include, but are not limited to:

  • Being over friendly with children
  • Having favourites
  • Taking photographs of children on their mobile phones, contrary to school policy,
  • Engaging with a child on a one-to-one basis in a secluded area or behind a closed door, or
  • Humiliating children.

Responding to low-level concerns

Where a concern has been raised the Safeguarding Lead of anzuk Education will gain as much evidence aspossible in order to help categorise the type of behaviour and determine what further action may need to betaken. This will be done by speaking:

  • directly to the person who raised the concern, unless it has been raised anonymously; and
  • to the individual involved and any witnesses.

Whenever there is a doubt as to whether the information which has been shared about a member of staff orcandidate as a low-level concern in fact meets the harm threshold, the LADO should be consulted.

Recording low-level concerns

All low-level concerns will be recorded in writing and include the following:

  • details of the concern;
  • the context in which the concern arose;
  • any action taken and;
  • the name of the individual sharing their concerns (unless the individual has asked to remain anonymous).

All records will be kept confidentially in accordance with anzuk Education data retention policy and also bereviewed so that potential patterns of concerning, problematic or inappropriate behaviour can be identified.

Criteria for raising concerns that meet the harms threshold under this Policy

A concern may be raised against an adult which suggests that they may be a risk to a child. This includespeople who may:

  • behaved in a way that has harmed a child, or may have harmed a child;
  • possibly committed a criminal offence against or related to a child;
  • behaved towards a child or children in a way that indicates he or she may pose a risk of harm to children;or
  • behaved or may have behaved in a way that indicates they may not be suitable to work with children.

Where concerns are raised about someone who works with children, it will be necessary for anzuk Education toassess any potential risk to other children who may have contact with the person against whom the allegationhas been made. This includes the person’s own children and family members.

Who should take the lead in investigating allegations regarding a candidate on placement in aneducation setting?

When deciding who should take the lead when a candidate is placed in a school anzuk Education will haveregard to Section 374, 375, 376 and 377 from Keeping Children Safe in Education 2023 (KCSIE 2023):

374. In some circumstances schools and colleges will have to consider an allegation against an individual notdirectly employed by them, where its disciplinary procedures do not fully apply because agencies will havetheir own policies and procedures; for example, supply teachers provided by an employment agency orbusiness (referred to in this section as ‘the agency’).

375. Whilst schools and colleges are not the employer of supply teachers, they should ensure allegations aredealt with properly. In no circumstances should a school or college decide to cease to use a supply teacherdue to safeguarding concerns, without finding out the facts and liaising with the [local authority designatedofficer] LADO to determine a suitable outcome. Governing bodies and proprietors should discuss with theagency whether it is appropriate to suspend the supply teacher, or redeploy them to another part of theschool or college, whilst they carry out their investigation.

376. Agencies should be fully involved and co-operate in any enquiries from the LADO, police and/or children’ssocial services. The school or college will usually take the lead because agencies do not have direct accessto children or other school staff, so they will not be able to collect the facts when an allegation is made, nordo they have all the relevant information required by the LADO as part of the referral process. Supplyteachers, whilst not employed by the school or college, are under the supervision, direction and control of the governing body or proprietor when working in the school or college. They should be advised to contact theirtrade union representative if they have one, or a colleague for support. The allegations managementmeeting which is often arranged by the LADO should address issues such as information sharing, to ensurethat any previous concerns or allegations known to the agency are considered by the school or collegeduring the investigation.

377. When using an agency, schools and colleges should inform the agency of its process for managingallegations but also take account of the agency’s policies and the duty placed on agencies to refer to theDBS as personnel suppliers. This should include inviting the agency’s human resource manager or equivalentto meetings and keeping them up to date with information about its policies.

If an allegation is raised and an educational establishment takes the lead in investigating the allegation, anzukEducation will use its best endeavours to assist with that investigation, including attending meetings andsharing relevant information. We do however reserve the right to conduct our own investigation where we arenot satisfied with the outcome of the investigation; where we either believe that a candidate has been unfairlytreated; that the guidance in KCSIE 2023 has not been followed; or where we continue to have concerns aboutthe suitability of the candidate to work with children/adults at risk.

Regardless of who takes the lead in the investigation, anzuk Education recognises the importance of alsoproviding the relevant support to the candidate concerned, and of reviewing any systems or processes hereat anzuk Education which may require improvement.
The remainder of this policy concerns the process to be followed if anzuk Education is to take the lead in aninvestigation, for example if a concern is received from some place other than an educational establishment,is a historical allegation, where the candidate does not fall into the above provision in KCSIE 2023, or where thecandidate is placed in a setting other than an educational one (e.g. a social work).

The procedure to be followed when an allegation is made

There may be up to three strands in considering a concern or an allegation:

  • A Police investigation of a criminal offence;
  • Enquiries and assessment by Children’s Social Care to ascertain whether a child or young person is inneed of protection or is in need of services;
  • Consideration by an employer of disciplinary action in respect of the individual

anzuk Education Responsibilities and Multi-Agency Partnerships

anzuk Education policies and processes ensure that all candidates and other staff understand that it is theirresponsibility to protect children and adults who are considered vulnerable because they have care orsupport needs from abuse or neglect. anzuk Education’s code of conduct gives guidance on what behaviouris expected from candidates when on placement in order to fulfil that responsibility.
All agencies have a joint responsibility to ensure that they work together to protect children and adults fromharm. If the anzuk Education gives a local authority information that suggests an adult may be a risk tochildren or adults, the local authority should give careful consideration as to what information should beshared with the anzuk Education to enable a comprehensive risk assessment to be conducted.

Allegations against people who work with children and adults who may be at risk must not be dealt with inisolation. Any corresponding action necessary to address the welfare of other children or adults with care and support needs should be taken without delay and in a coordinated manner, to prevent the need for furthersafeguarding in future.

Any allegation which arises in relation to historical abuse by a candidate or other member of staff, should beresponded to in the same way as a current concern. In such cases, it is imperative to ascertain whether theperson concerned is still working with adults and/or children and if so, to inform their currentemployer/organisation.

The standard of proof for prosecution is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. The standard of proof for internaldisciplinary procedures and for discretionary barring consideration by the Disclosure and Barring Service(DBS) is usually the civil standard of ‘on the balance of probabilities’. This means that when criminalprocedures are concluded without action being taken this does not automatically mean that regulatory ordisciplinary procedures should cease, or not be considered. In any event, there is always a legal duty to makea safeguarding referral to DBS if a person is dismissed or removed from their role due to harm to a child or anadult with care and support needs.

If someone is removed from their role providing regulated activity following a safeguarding incident, anzukEducation has a legal duty to refer them to the DBS. This also applies where a person leaves their role to avoida disciplinary hearing following a safeguarding incident and anzuk Education believes they would havedismissed the person based on the information they had.

The Local Safeguarding Partner arrangements/Local Safeguarding Adults Board procedures should specifythe timescales, actions and procedures for responding to any allegations or concerns raised.

Actions required following an allegation against the candidate or other member of staff

Any allegation against people who work with children and/or adults with care and support needs should bereported immediately to the Safeguarding Lead at anzuk Education.

When an allegation has been made against a candidate or other member of staff, the Safeguarding Lead
should not investigate the matter by interviewing the accused person, the child or potential witnesses, butshould only gather sufficient information to establish whether there is enough credible information to proceedfurther (this is known as a ‘fact find’). If they are unclear about this, they should consult with the LADO in thearea in which the Organisation is located. They should also:

  • Obtain written details of the allegation, signed and dated by the person receiving the complaint, orallegation and any other relevant person at the point the allegation has been made;
  • Countersign and date the written details;
  • Record discussions about the child/adult and/or candidate/member of staff, any decisions made, andthe reasons for those decisions;
  • Decide whether any immediate action needs to be taken to safeguard any child or whether an urgentreferral needs to be made to either Children’s Social Care and/or the Police;
  • The accused adult must not be informed of the allegations before consideration has been given to theimplications this may have on any subsequent investigation.
  • Consult the local procedures in the area in which the organisation is based and seek advice from the LocalAuthority Designated Officer (LADO). The LADO is responsible for dealing with allegations against peoplewho work with children. anzuk Education should make a clear distinction between an allegation, a concernabout the quality of care or a complaint when speaking to the LADO. Contact with the LADO should bemade within one working day of the allegation being brought to the attention of the Safeguarding Lead.
  • At an agreed appropriate time, the Safeguarding Lead should also make the person concerned aware oftheir rights under employment legislation and any internal processes.

Whilst any allegation is being investigated and until the outcome is decided, candidates or other staff againstwhom there is an allegation, should always be treated fairly and respectively, helped to understand theconcerns expressed and processes involved, and supported through the process.

It is the responsibility of the local authority to ensure that there are appropriate arrangements in place toeffectively liaise with the police and other agencies, to monitor the progress of cases and ensure that they are dealt with as quickly as possible, consistent with a thorough and fair process.

Persons to be first notified

Any concerns should be shared with the Safeguarding Lead at anzuk Education. A plan of action should beagreed including of who needs to be notified and by whom and consider whether any action needs to betaken to preserve evidence or prevent further harm.

Safeguarding Lead must inform the LADO, for the area in which anzuk Education is based, of the allegation.

Where it is suspected that a criminal offence may have been committed, the Safeguarding Lead should alsoinform the police.

If the person against whom the allegation has been made has contact with other children (for example,children in their own family), a referral should also be made to Children’s Social Care.


The Safeguarding Lead should refer to the Safeguarding Children Partnership or Local Safeguarding AdultBoard procedures (for the area where anzuk Education is based) which should specify:

  • action to be taken pending the outcome of the police investigations;
  • action to be taken following a decision to prosecute an individual;
  • action to be taken following a decision not to prosecute;
  • action to be taken pending a trial;
  • responses to both acquittal and conviction.

Where the LADO, in conjunction with the police as appropriate, decides that the information gathered requiresfurther discussion, the factors below should be considered. These may be considered as part of a strategydiscussion/meeting, depending on the circumstances of the case and what decisions are made if any section47 (child protection) enquiry is instigated.

The LADO Strategy Discussion should:

  • Consider the three possible strands set out earlier in this policy;
  • Review any previous concerns or allegations about conduct of the accused person;
  • Decide whether there should be a
  • Section 47 Enquiry
  • and/or Police investigation and consider theimplications;
  • Consider whether any parallel disciplinary process should take place;
  • Consider whether a complex abuse investigation is applicable;
  • Scope and plan enquiries;
  • Allocate tasks;
  • Set timescales;
  • Decide what information can be shared, with whom and when;
  • Ensure that arrangements are made to protect the child/ren involved and any other child/ren affected,including taking emergency action where needed;
  • Consider what support should be provided to all children who may have been affected directly andindirectly;
  • Consider what support should be provided to the person against whom the complaint or allegation hasbeen made and others who might have been affected;
  • Ensure that investigations are sufficiently independent;
  • Make arrangements to inform the child’s parents, and consider how to
  • provide them with support andinformation during enquiries;
  • Identify a lead contact manager within each agency;
  • Agree protocols for reviewing investigations and monitoring progress by the LADO, noting the target time scales;
  • Agree dates for future LADO Strategy Meetings;
  • Consider obtaining consent from the individuals concerned by the Police and the Children’s Services Trustto share the statements and evidence theyobtain with anzuk Education and/or regulatory body fordisciplinary purposes.

Possible risk to others

The possible risk of harm to other adults or children should be assessed and managed including those adultsor children who may be at risk in the accused’s home, work or community life.

Where necessary, action should be taken, using te Safeguarding Children Partnership and SafeguardingAdults Board procedures as appropriate to protect children and adults from abuse or neglect.

Sharing information

Unless it puts the child in danger, risks harm to others, or raises the possibility of evidence being destroyed, theindividual concerned should be informed that the information regarding the allegation against them will beshared, and with whom. Each case must be assessed individually as there may be rare cases where informingthe person about details of the allegations may increase the risks to the child. Decisions on sharinginformation must be justifiable and proportionate, based on the potential or actual harm to children at riskand the rationale for decision making should always be recorded. This decision should always be made inconsultation with the LADO.

The person with the allegation against them should be offered a right to reply, and wherever possible giventhe opportunity to consent to the information being shared.

The Safeguarding Lead should be advised as to what information (whether fully or partial) can be shared,and when, with the child and their parents (where applicable). The LADO and the police should discuss withthe Safeguarding Lead and decide what information they can share with the candidate or member of staff towhom the allegation relates, including being kept updated about any investigation which is undertaken, anydisciplinary or related actions. Ofsted/CQC should be informed of any allegation or concern made against aperson who works with children or adults with care and support needs. They may also be invited to take part ina related strategy meeting/discussion.

When an allegation is made against a candidate or member of staff, it can be a challenging and emotive situation for all those involved, but also for colleagues and family of the accused person. Every effort shouldbe made to maintain confidentiality in relation to the child, their parents and the candidate or member ofstaff. All candidates and members of staff should be reminded that the allegation must not be discussedoutside of formal meetings with approved personnel, and no comment regarding it should be made on socialmedia. It should be made clear that breach of this would result in disciplinary action being taken against theperson concerned.

Media strategy

Until a person is charged, the police should not normally provide the media with any identifying information,for example a public appeal to trace a suspect. In such cases, reasons for the publicity should be recordedwith prior consultation of involved partner agencies.

Any media interest whilst an allegation is being investigated or considered should be handled very carefully,and a media strategy agreed by a multi-agency strategy meeting, including the anzuk Education, whereappropriate.

Support for the child/adult and their family

The person who is the main point of liaison with the child and their parents should keep them up to date, asfar as possible, with the progress of the investigation whilst not breaching confidentiality in relation to theaccused person.

Other professionals providing care and support to the child and their parents should remain impartialthroughout the process. Whilst they should provide support specific to their role, they should refrain fromoffering opinion on the case and in particular, not be seen to favour either side. This duty applies to all thoseinvolved, including the placement agency.

Support for the accused person

As soon as possible after an allegation has been received, the candidate or member of staff should beadvised to contact their union or professional association if they have one. The Safeguarding Lead shouldexplore how they can be supported if an investigation takes place. This may be via a named person in theorganisation or via external agencies.

Following the outcome of the investigation, if the candidate or member of staff returns to work after a periodof suspension, the Safeguarding Lead should consider what help and support might be appropriate. This mayinclude a phased return to work or deciding on what information to give to other professionals.


Suspension should not be automatic when an allegation is received. It should be considered when:

  • there is concern that a child/adult is suffering or likely to suffer abuse or neglect;
  • the allegation has resulted in an investigation by the police; or
  • the allegation is so serious there may be grounds for dismissal.

Although those involved in the investigation can discuss views on suspension, only the Safeguarding Lead hasthe power to suspend an employee or candidate. The service cannot be required to suspend an employee bythe local authority or the police. Suspension may be considered when there is no other way to prevent theperson concerned having contact with children or adults with care and support needs while the investigationis ongoing.


The following definitions should be used when determining the outcome of allegation investigations:

  • Substantiated: there is sufficient identifiable evidence to prove the allegation;
  • False: there is sufficient evidence to disprove the allegation;
  • Malicious: there is clear evidence to prove there has been a deliberate act to deceive and the allegation isentirely false;
  • Unsubstantiated: this is not the same as a false allegation. It means that there is insufficient evidence toprove or
  • disprovethe allegation.
  • The term therefore does not imply guilt or innocence;
  • Unfounded: to reflect cases where there is no evidence or proper basis to support the allegation made.

If it is established that an allegation has been deliberately invented, the police should be asked to consider ifany action may be appropriate. anzuk Education should also consider whether there is any appropriate actionthey can take, including giving advice to other members of staff, risk assessments or changes to working practices.

Disciplinary process

Safeguarding Lead should decide, in conjunction with the LADO, whether disciplinary action is required. Thedisciplinary procedures of the organisation should be followed in such circumstances. In the case ofcandidates, they should decide whether it is appropriate to use/employ them in the future, and whether areferral to the DBS is warranted. Referrals to other regulatory bodies (such as Social Work England) may also be required.

Wherever possible and necessary during the disciplinary process, consent should be obtained from therelevant people to share information with required organisations/bodies.

Where there are prosecutions, the police should inform the Safeguarding Lead and
the LADO of the outcome immediately, to enable them to act as required in relation to the person’s future employment and any required DBS referral.

Terminating employment

Wherever possible a conclusion to the investigation should be achieved, even if:

  • the employee does not cooperate with the investigation;
  • disciplinary sanctions are not possible because the employee terminates their employment before theprocess has been completed.

In cases where an employer has a duty to refer an employee to Disclosure and Barring Service as the criteriafor referral are met, agreements that enable the employee to resign with no disciplinary action and provisionof future references should not be made.

Where the Safeguarding Lead dismisses an individual from work with children/adults (or would have, had theperson not left first) because they pose a risk of harm, it must make a referral to the DBS. It is an offence to failto make a referral without good reason. Where in doubt, advice should be sought from the DBS.

Record keeping

The Safeguarding Lead should keep a clear and comprehensive record of the allegation, decisions reached,and actions taken on the person’s personnel file, a copy of which should be given to them.

The record should include details of how the allegation was followed up and resolved, the decisions reached, and the action taken. It should be kept at least until the person reaches normal retirement age or for 10 years if longer.

The record will provide accurate information for any future reference and provide clarification if a future DBS disclosure reveals an allegation that did not result in a prosecution or a conviction. It will prevent unnecessary re-investigation if the allegation should resurface.

Details of allegations that are found to be malicious should be removed from personnel records.

Each agency/organisation must take great care to ensure that the records they keep respect theconfidentiality of the alleged victim and/or the accused adult.


Cases in which an allegation was proven to be false, unsubstantiated or malicious should not be included inemployer references. A history of repeated concerns or allegations which have all been found to be false,unfounded, unsubstantiated or malicious, should also not be included in any reference.

Unsubstantiated or false allegations

Where it is decided there is not enough evidence to substantiate an allegation, the professional involvedshould inform the Safeguarding Lead in writing.

If it is established that an allegation has been deliberately invented, the police should be asked to consider ifany action may be appropriate. The Safeguarding Lead should also consider whether there is any appropriateaction they can take, including giving advice to the family with whom the child/adult is living, and obtainingadditional support and mentoring for any child/adult who made a false allegation.

Referral to the Disclosure and Barring Service

Where allegations are substantiated, and in observance with our legal responsibilities, anzuk Education willreport candidates to the Disclosure and Baring Service (DBS) where appropriate and seek advice where weare uncertain.

Learning lessons

At the conclusion of an investigation, anzuk Education and the LADO, and any other relevant parties, shouldundertake a review of the case.
This should ascertain whether there are lessons to be learned for the organisation, which would result inimprovements to procedures or practice, in relation to the circumstances which led to the allegation.

The process of investigating the allegation should also be evaluated, to decide if there are alsorecommendations for improvements.
Where changes to policy are recommended, this should be implemented as soon as possible andcommunicated to all staff.

Consideration should be given by anzuk Education regarding how lessons learned can best be communicatedto staff – whether this be by internal communication, supervision, staff meetings or training events.