Mr H complains that the TRA took too long to conduct a disciplinary hearing (5 years and 8 months) and inform him of the upholding of an Interim Prohibition Order (IPO) within a reasonable period of time.
13. Before we decide whether to conduct a detailed investigation, we consider whether there are signs that the organisation may have acted wrongly. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen. Having done so, we have not found any indications that the TRA acted outside its statutory powers or failed to follow relevant guidance.
14. The TRA imposed an Interim Prohibition Order (IPO) on Mr H on 13 June 2019. An IPO is a protective measure which restricts a teacher from working in schools while serious allegations are investigated. As set out in paragraph 62 of Teacher misconduct: the prohibition of teachers, the TRA may impose an IPO where it considers this necessary and proportionate to protect children or members of the public, and where there is a real risk of harm. We are satisfied that the TRA was legally entitled to impose an IPO and that this action was within its statutory remit under the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012.
15. The TRA explained that the allegations against Mr H spanned a lengthy period, from 2002 to 2019. We recognise that gathering and assessing historical information of this nature can be complex and time-consuming, particularly where records are old or incomplete. This contributed to the overall length of the process.
16. The TRA also explained that, at the time the IPO was imposed, there was an ongoing police investigation into related allegations. In line with its published guidance, the TRA placed its investigation into abeyance so as not to prejudice criminal proceedings. We note that the police investigation ran from May 2019 until June 2021. Pausing regulatory action in these circumstances is consistent with established practice and reflects the TRA’s obligation to act fairly and lawfully.
17. We were further advised that Mr H’s case was transferred to a different legal team in July 2022. While we appreciate this added to the delay, we have not seen evidence to suggest this arose from maladministration rather than factors outside the TRA’s direct control.
18. In October 2022, the TRA disclosed its evidence bundle to Mr H and invited his representations. The TRA then decided to refer the matter to a Professional Conduct Panel (PCP). In order to do so, it was required to gather evidence from around 20 witnesses, some of whom were identified as vulnerable. In addition, both parties sought resolution of preliminary matters through a Case Management Hearing (CMH). We recognise that these steps, while contributing to delay, were necessary to ensure procedural fairness and a thorough examination of the allegations.
19. We have also seen that Mr H was informed of his right to request reviews of the IPO. He exercised this right in January 2022, August 2023 and May 2024. The TRA considered each request and remained in correspondence with Mr H throughout the process, responding to queries about the status of his case. While we acknowledge that the prolonged uncertainty would have been distressing for Mr H, we are satisfied that the TRA acted in line with the Principles of Good Administration, being customer focused by keeping him informed and by making him aware of its review functions.
Mr H explains the TRA did not use an independent adjudicator in assessing his complaint. The TRA did also not offer any support or compensation throughout the time Mr H was placed in unemployment as a direct result of delaying the disciplinary hearing.
20. We have considered how the TRA responded to Mr H’s complaint. The TRA issued its initial complaint response on 30 December 2024, followed by a further response on 24 January 2025. We understand Mr H was concerned that both responses were issued by the same member of staff and that an independent adjudicator was not appointed to consider his complaint.
21. Having carefully considered this, we have not found that anything went wrong. There is no requirement within the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, or within the TRA’s complaints process, for complaints to be reviewed by an independent adjudicator. While we recognise Mr H would have preferred his complaint to be reviewed independently, the key consideration for us is whether the TRA properly considered and responded to the substance of his concerns. We have seen that it did so, setting out clear explanations for the delays and the actions taken. We nevertheless acknowledge that receiving responses from the same officer may have contributed to Mr H’s sense of frustration and lack of confidence in the complaints process.
22. We recognise the significant emotional and financial impact of the length of time it took for the TRA to conclude Mr H’s case. During this period, Mr H was unable to work as a teacher due to the IPO. We understand how distressing this would have been, particularly given the prolonged uncertainty surrounding the outcome of the disciplinary process.
23. As set out in the Teacher misconduct: the prohibition of teachers guidance and the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, the TRA’s statutory role is to investigate allegations of serious teacher misconduct and to take action where necessary to protect children and maintain public confidence in the profession. The imposition of an IPO is a protective, precautionary measure and does not represent a finding of misconduct. The legislation does not provide the TRA with powers to offer compensation for loss of earnings arising from the use of an IPO. While we understand Mr H’s concern that the IPO prevented him from teaching, this restriction did not prevent him from seeking other forms of employment during this period.
24. We have also seen that the TRA remained in contact with Mr H, responded to his requests for reviews of the IPO, and provided information about the process and available support, including access to legal representation. In this context, we have found that the TRA acted in line with our Principles of Good Administration, particularly the principle of being customer focused, by communicating with Mr H, explaining its decisions, and responding to his concerns within the limits of its statutory role.
25. We understand this is not the outcome Mr H was seeking when he asked us to investigate his complaint. We recognise the prolonged uncertainty and disruption this process caused him and appreciate the seriousness of the concerns he raised. We hope our decision clearly explains the reasons for our view and the limits of what the TRA is able to do under the relevant legislation.