14 - Delay in Reporting Raises Safeguarding Concerns at Bury College Tribunal

A major safeguarding inconsistency emerged during the employment tribunal involving Bury College: the College took 11 days to notify the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) after a student raised an allegation; far outside the recommended timeframe.

At Tribunal, Sarah Walton, the College’s Designated Safeguarding Lead (DSL), acknowledged that employers are expected to notify the LADO within one working day of an allegation coming to their attention, in accordance with Keeping Children Safe in Education 2023 (KCSIE) and local safeguarding procedures.

However, the Tribunal heard that Student B initially raised her concern on 8 September 2023, yet the LADO was not contacted by the College until 19 September 2023, an 11-day delay. When pressed on this discrepancy under cross-examination, Walton was unable to explain the delay.

This delay is not just a technicality. The one-working-day expectation exists to ensure that safeguarding concerns are handled promptly and transparently. It is a statutory obligation and reflects national guidance aimed at preventing harm through timely intervention and oversight.

The delay is even more significant given that the teacher was suspended prior the LADO being contacted, suggesting that the College escalated the issue before even knowing whether it met the LADO's threshold for intervention.

Indeed, when the LADO did review the case, they concluded that the concern did not meet the threshold of harm, meaning the matter should have been dealt with under the College’s low-level concerns policy, not through formal disciplinary proceedings.

Sarah Walton accepted the one-day requirement, yet the College offered no explanation for why the timeline was ignored.

This failure to act within the expected timeframe raises broader questions about the College’s understanding and implementation of statutory safeguarding duties. If an institution delays contacting the LADO, that undermines confidence in the entire safeguarding process.

The Tribunal must now consider whether this failure was part of a pattern of procedural shortcomings that unfairly impacted the teacher at the centre of the case. The unexplained delay, the rejection of earlier informal resolution, and the disregard for low-level concern procedures have collectively cast doubt on the fairness and compliance of Bury College’s internal handling of the matter.

 


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Beyond the Headlines: What the Tribunal Really Showed About Bury College’s Case

Recent local coverage of the unfair dismissal tribunal involving a Bury College lecturer painted a simplified picture: a teacher used the “R-word” in class, the College acted, and a tribunal found the dismissal unfair only because of procedural flaws. But the deeper reality is more complex and far more troubling for the College’s credibility. [original article here:  Bury Times ]   Shifting Student Accounts The central complaint was not consistent. The initial allegation from Student B was that the maths lecturer had called the entire class “retards.” Later, she changed her account to say he had called just her the word. Still later, the complaint shifted again; now alleging he had called a different student, and then two students. Such shifting accounts should have raised immediate questions about reliability. Instead, the College treated the complaint as fact. Credibility of the Complaint Serious questions also arise about the credibility of the original complaint....
Read more

38 - Bury College Principal Endorses DSL’s Use of the Word “Retard”

Bury College Principal, Charlie Deane, has openly supported the College’s Designated Safeguarding Lead (DSL), Sarah Walton, after she repeated the word “retard” directly to a student with a learning disability. This position is remarkable given the College’s own characterisation of the word. In formal proceedings, the College has described “retard” as “offensive,” “derogatory,” “inappropriate,” “bullying,” “harassing,” “alienating,” “hateful,” “unacceptable,” “not used in society,” “a hate crime,” “a disgusting word,” and “linked to a protected characteristic.” The College also acknowledged that its use would cause damage to a student. Despite this, when Walton repeated the word to a vulnerable learner, she faced no sanction, no criticism, and was instead fully supported by Deane. By contrast, another member of staff who repeated the word in a classroom context was vilified and dismissed. Deane’s backing of Walton exposes a troubling double standard. If the word is so damaging tha...
Read more

08 - Safeguarding Lead at Bury College Repeated Harmful Language to Student, Tribunal Hears

The Designated Safeguarding Lead at Bury College admitted to repeating a derogatory slur to a vulnerable student, despite knowing it could cause harm, according to evidence heard at a recent employment tribunal. Sarah Walton, the College's safeguarding lead, made the admission under cross-examination while giving evidence in a three-day hearing concerning the dismissal of a former staff member. The former employee had been dismissed for gross misconduct after allegedly using the word "retard" in a classroom context. Ms Walton told the tribunal that she repeated the slur during a phone call with Student A, a student with a recognised learning disability, so the student would "know exactly what word" she was referring to. When pressed, she accepted that her use of the word could cause the same harm as when the dismissed teacher had used it. However, unlike the Claimant, no disciplinary action was taken against Ms Walton. Her conduct was not investigated, cri...
Read more