Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in its treatment of the complainant and her husband as potential adopters. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Council’s part causing demonstrable injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Mrs X, complains that the Council, in its capacity as an adoption, agency was at fault in its treatment of her and her husband as potential adopters.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X and her husband were approved as potential adopters in 2021. Mrs X says that for a period of 18 months they were linked with a child, who I will refer to as Y, with a view to adoption. Mrs X complains that the Council failed to ensure the matter went to the adoption panel, and subsequently characterised her as untrustworthy and dishonest, leading Y’s home authority to withdraw him from the process. She further complains that the Council breached her husband’s confidentiality.
6. Mrs X says that the fault she identifies on the Council’s part has caused her and her husband considerable distress, and caused them to lose the opportunity to adopt Y. She says they felt compelled to withdraw from the adoption process with the Council.
7. Mrs X’s complaint has completed the Council’s complaints procedure. The Council has accepted that referral to the adoption panel was delayed but says this was due to circumstances which were outside its control. Mrs X argues that despite these circumstances, there were still opportunities for the matter to be considered.
8. The Council has also set out the reason why it withdrew its support for placing Y with Mrs X and her husband, pending a reassessment, though it points out that it was not responsible for the decision to withdraw Y from the process.
9. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is no evidence of fault on the Council’s part causing injustice to warrant our intervention. Both parties accept that delay in the process of referral to the adoption panel occurred, and that this was largely outside the Council’s control. Mrs X argues that there were still opportunities to expedite the process. If that is the case it is possible that the adoption would have happened, though we cannot say that with any certainty. The subsequent events must however cast doubt on whether this would have been the right outcome for Y. We cannot find that the delay necessarily led to an outcome which was more unfavourable than would otherwise have been the case.
10. Turning to the decision to withdraw support for the adoption pending reassessment, the evidence shows that the Council took this decision having received information from Y’s foster carer. The foster carer alleged that Mrs X had withheld information from the Council. The Council says that, when it asked Mrs X about this, she gave an inaccurate response. This caused it to suspend the process and inform Y’s home authority.
11. Mrs X does not dispute that her response was inaccurate. Rather, she explains why she answered as she did, disputes the relevance of the matter, and complains about the conduct of the Council’s social worker. She wants an apology for being characterised as dishonest.
12. The complaint correspondence shows that the decision to suspend the process was based on the fact that Mrs X gave inaccurate information to the Council. It was for the Council to decide whether this was relevant. Mrs X disagrees with the weight the Council gave to the matter, but that is not for the Ombudsman to question. The Council’s position is defensible. That being the case, the Ombudsman cannot question the merits of the decision it made or intervene to substitute an alternative view.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is no evidence of fault on the Council’s part causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman