Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about how the Council treated them as foster carers. There were delays in the statutory complaints process and the Council failed to properly remedy the injustice caused by the fault it accepted. The Council agreed to fully apologise to Mr and Mrs X, pay them a financial remedy and work to restore their fostering authorisation.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X complain about how the Council ended a fostering placement with them in 2018, the conduct of the allocated social worker at the time and how the Council subsequently investigated their complaint about this.
2. As a result of the Council’s actions, they say they have been caused significant distress, they have been prevented from working as foster carers and that this has impacted on their physical and emotional health.
3. They want the Council to apologise, confirm they did nothing wrong, that it was the cause of the placement ending and to pay them compensation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
7. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
8. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered:
• the information Mr X provided and discussed the complaint with him;
• the Council’s comments on the complaint and the supporting information it provided; and
• relevant law and guidance.
10. Mr and Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.
11. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

What I found

Fostering

12. Family Courts can make Care Orders which place children in the care of a council because of concerns about the adequacy of the parents’ care causing significant harm to the child.
13. Councils have statutory duties to children in care to promote and safeguard their welfare. The ‘Care, Planning and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010’ and guidance sets out how councils should manage and arrange placements.
14. In relation to the termination of foster placements, the above guidance advises councils to carry out a statutory review of the child’s case and ensure the views of all the people concerned have been heard, unless there is an immediate risk of significant harm, requiring immediate removal.
15. The ‘Fostering Minimum Standards’ say that children should not normally be moved if the foster carers are willing to care for them.
16. When children are in foster care, the foster carers will have their own fostering social worker, who is responsible for supporting and assessing their care. The children will have their own social worker. Both social workers should work closely together.

Statutory children’s complaint procedures

17. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. The accompanying statutory guidance, ‘Getting the Best from Complaints’, explains councils’ responsibilities in more detail. We also published practitioner guidance on the procedures, setting out our expectations.
18. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
19. If a complainant is not happy with a council’s stage one response, they can ask that it is considered at stage two. At this stage of the procedure, councils appoint an investigating officer (IO) to look into the complaint and an independent person (IP) who is responsible for overseeing the investigation and ensuring its independence.
20. Following the investigation, a senior manager (the adjudicating officer) at the council should carry out an adjudication. The officer considers the IO report and any report from the IP. They decide what the council’s response to the complaint will be, including what action it will take. The adjudicating officer should then write to the complainant with a copy of the investigation report, any report from the independent person and the adjudication response.
21. The whole stage two process should be completed within 25 working days but guidance allows an extension for up to 65 working days where required.
22. If a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of the stage two investigation, they can ask for a stage three review by an independent panel. The council must hold the panel within 30 working days of the date of request, and then issue a final response within 20 working days of the panel hearing.
23. The statutory children’s complaints procedure was set up to provide children, young people and those involved in their welfare with access to an independent, thorough and prompt response to their concerns. Because of this, if a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it.
24. However, we may look at whether there were any flaws in the stage two investigation or stage three review panel that could call the findings into question. We may also consider whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation and review panel, and whether it has completed any recommendations without delay.

Background

25. Mr and Mrs X are former foster carers for the Council. In 2017 the Council placed a child, Y, with Mr and Mrs X.
26. The placement with Mr and Mrs X lasted until early 2018 when the Council removed Y from their care. The Council said this was due to concerns the placement was not in Y’s best interests and about Mr and Mrs X’s parenting.

Mr and Mrs X complained to the Council, in early June 2019, about how it ended Y’s placement. The Council considered Mr and Mrs X’s complaint under the statutory children’s complaints procedure.

Council’s handling of Mr and Mrs X’s complaint

Stage one

27. The Council sent its stage one response to Mr and Mrs X’s complaint in late August 2019. In that letter the Council said it had “identified some questionable practice and decision-making with regards to [Y] being moved to another foster care placement in the way that [they were].” It also “acknowledge[d] that the process was not carried out correctly or fairly”, that Mr and Mrs X “were not given any reason for the decision to move [Y]” and that the Council failed to properly prepare them for a meeting after Y was removed from their care. The Council invited Mr and Mrs X to meet with managers from the fostering service to discuss their complaint further.
28. Mr and Mrs X were not satisfied with the Council’s response, so they asked the Council to investigate their complaint under stage two of the statutory procedure.

Stage two investigation

29. The Council appointed an investigating officer (IO) and independent person (IP) to consider the complaint in late 2019. The first IO produced a list of over 20 points they intended to investigate, based on Mr X’s complaint letter. Mr X told the IO he did not agree the proposed summary of his complaint covered all the issues he wanted to complain about.
30. Shortly after the stage two investigation began, the IP raised concerns with the Council about the conduct of the first IO. This led to the Council removing the first IO from the complaint and the first IP also being unwilling to continue.
31. The Council appointed a second IO and IP to investigate the complaint in February 2020. The Council said this took longer than it should have due to staff being absent from work in early 2020. It also apologised to Mr and Mrs X for the delays up to this point and paid them £500 to recognise the frustration those delays had caused.
32. The second IO amended the summary of complaint for their investigation based on discussions with Mr X and included several extra points which had not been included in the first summary prepared.
33. The second IO and IP conducted their investigation of Mr X’s complaint between February and July 2020. As part of the investigation the IO:
• considered notes of interviews the first IO had with social workers and other council officers;
• had further discissions with the social workers and council officers involved;
• wrote to Mr and Mrs X for some more information; and
• reviewed the social care records of Mr and Mrs X and Y.
34. In their report, the second IO noted that, due to the restrictions in place because of the COVID-19 pandemic, their investigation had taken longer than usual and they could not meet in person for the further interviews. They could also not speak to staff at the nursery Y attended while in Mr and Mrs X’s care, which was closed due to the restrictions. The IO decided not to delay their investigation further by waiting for the nursery to re-open.

Stage two report and findings

35. The IO upheld several parts of Mr and Mrs X’s complaint. They found that:
• the Council had taken too long to respond to Mr and Mrs X’s complaint at the first stage of the process and there had been delays at stage two;
• there was inadequate training available for foster carers, at the time Y was placed with Mr and Mrs X, particularly with the kinds of difficulties Y had;
• social workers should have provided more support to Mrs X when she raised concerns about Y’s contact with their birth parents rather than just stating this was court ordered and could not be changed;
• Y’s social worker did not have enough evidence to reasonably decide that Mrs X was refusing, or would refuse, to comply with contact arrangements between Y and their birth family;
• social workers missed opportunities to plan for how much time Y should spend at nursery during school holidays and concerns about this were not discussed with Mr and Mrs X before the Council removed Y from their care;
• Y’s social worker only considered one side of a conversation Mrs X had with a third party when deciding to change Y’s placement and did not give Mrs X the opportunity to respond to the concerns until after Y had been removed from their care;
• the Council’s allegation that Mrs X had particular negative feelings about Y was made without any evidence and was based on misrepresented or misreported statements;
• Y’s social worker made an unreasonable number of calls and messages to Mrs X on a day when Y was unwell and unable to attend a scheduled family contact visit;
• the Council removed Y from Mr and Mrs X’s care without any notice and Mrs X only found out about this when three social workers attended her home to remove Y;
• social workers failed to comply with fostering procedures when removing Y from Mr and Mrs X’s care. Particularly, social workers did not discuss their concerns about how Mr and Mrs X were caring for Y, did not inform them of the reasons for the change in placement or give them an opportunity to respond;
• the Council only discussed the reasons for removing Y after this had happened and failed to properly prepare Mr and Mrs X for the meeting to discuss the Council’s concerns;
• the Council could have better communicated the opportunities Mr and Mrs X had to discuss their concerns about what happened and the concerns the Council had about their parenting;
• the Council did not prepare detailed minutes of the meeting which took place after Y’s removal from Mr and Mrs X’s care; and
• social workers failed to invite Mr and Mrs X to a different meeting which took place after Y was removed from their care which would have looked into the reasons why the placement ended.
36. The Council wrote to Mr and Mrs X in July 2020. It accepted the findings from the IO’s report and apologised for how Y’s placement had been ended.
37. Mr and Mrs X asked the Council to proceed to stage three of the complaints procedure in August 2020. In response to this, the Council realised some information Mr and Mrs X had provided to the first IO had not been given to the second IO to consider. Because of the lockdown restrictions in place at the time, the Council says it took until November 2020 to obtain that information, which it sent to the second IO for review.
38. The second IO produced an “addendum report” in December 2020 which said the extra information and evidence did not change their findings in respect of the complaint. They sent this additional report to the Council for adjudication in late 2020.
39. However, the Council did not write to Mr and Mrs X or share the result of this further consideration of their evidence until late 2021, almost a year later. It is not clear if Mr and Mrs X contacted the Council to chase up this response during that time, but the Council accepts that it should have written to them much sooner and paid them a further £500 to recognise the delay.
40. Mr X then told the Council that Mrs X was unwell and he wished to pause the complaints process until she had recovered. Mr X asked to extend that pause in October 2022.
41. In early 2023, Mr X and the Council met to discuss his complaint further. The Council said its hope was that, given the time that had passed, it would be able to resolve the complaint without further delays. During the meeting, the Council offered Mr X a financial remedy of £5,000. However, Mr X rejected this because he felt the Council’s actions had led to a significant loss of earnings during the past several years during which he and Mrs X were unable to foster children. Instead, Mr X asked the Council to arrange a review of his complaint at stage three of the statutory procedure.

Stage three panel

42. The Council arranged the stage three panel for May 2023. Mr X told the Council he did not want to attend the panel hearing, as he did not believe that the panel would fully consider his complaint. However, the panel chair did speak to Mr X by telephone ahead of the meeting.
43. The stage three panel reviewed the parts of Mr and Mrs X’s complaint which the Council had not upheld at stage two. It agreed with most of the findings at stage two but found that:
• there was evidence of a poor working relationship between social workers an Mrs and Mrs X and implied that social workers could have done more to build a better relationship with Mr and Mrs X;
• there was a lack of evidence from the nursey around injuries Y sustained and therefore there was not enough information to make a finding there had been no ill intentions on the part of Y’s social worker when raising concerns about this; and
• the Council’s fostering service had not supported Mr and Mrs X well at the meeting following Y’s removal from their care.
44. The Council accepted the findings from the stage three panel in June 2023 and confirmed to Mr and Mrs X that it would be implementing the recommendations the panel made for further improvements to its working practices.
45. Mr and Mrs X were not happy with the outcome of the statutory complaints procedure, so they complained to the Ombudsman. In particular, they said the Council did not investigate all of their original complaint, that the Council reached unreasonable conclusions and has not properly recognised the impact on them.

My findings

Considering late complaints

46. Although Mr and Mrs X complained to the Ombudsman sometime after the events from 2018, I am satisfied there are good reasons to consider their complaint now. There were significant delays in the Council’s handling of their complaint and there were also periods of time during which Mrs X was unwell. After the Council sent Mr and Mrs X its stage three decision, they complained to the Ombudsman about this promptly.

How the Council investigated the complaint

47. If a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it. However, we may look at whether there were any flaws in the stage two investigation or stage three review panel that could call the findings into question. We may also consider whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation and review panel, and whether it has completed any recommendations without delay.
48. I carefully considered whether the Council investigated all the key points from Mr and Mrs X’s 2019 complaint during the statutory process, including further comments Mr X sent me during my investigation.
49. The guidance on the statutory complaints procedure does not require that councils agree a written statement of complaint when someone has already complained in writing. Although the Council did not use the same language as in the original complaint, or include all the details from the letter, I am satisfied the Council’s summary of the complaint included all the key issues Mr and Mrs X complained about.
50. Mr X said the Council was clear that its summary of his complaint should be read with his original complaint letter but that it failed to do this. I am satisfied the second investigating officer did fully consider Mr and Mrs X’s original complaint letter during their investigation. There is evidence the second IO added points to their summary of complaint, based on the letter and Mr X’s comments.
51. I have also carefully considered whether there were any flaws at either stage two or three that would call the findings of the Council’s investigation into question.
52. In my view, the stage two investigation was carried our appropriately. The second IO considered all the evidence available to them, including that which came to light in late 2020 and undertook an extensive review both case records and interviews. The second independent person (who was independent of the Council) confirmed in their report that they were involved in all the key stages of the investigation and the investigation was carried out openly, transparently, and fairly.
53. However, there were significant delays in the stage two investigation, which I address below.
54. The stage three review was also carried out appropriately. The panel was independent of the Council, considered Mr and Mrs X’s written submissions and offered them the opportunity to attend the review meeting. Although Mr X declined to attend, the panel chair spoke to him before the meeting took place and took his view into consideration.
55. Since there were no flaws in the statutory process which call the findings into question, I do not consider it appropriate to question the findings of that investigation or re-investigate the original events.

Delays

56. There were significant delays in the Council’s handling of Mr and Mrs X’s complaint.
57. The first stage of the process took around three months longer than the 20 working days allowed for complex complaints. The Council has accepted this was fault, already apologised and paid Mr and Mrs X a financial remedy.
58. At stage two there were several delays:
• The need to appoint a second IO/IP due to concerns about the first IO’s conduct caused a delay of around five months to the start of the stage two investigation.
• From February 2020 the stage two investigation took around two and a half months longer than it should have done. Some of this delay was due to the disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, but I am not satisfied that fully accounted for all of the delays;
• There was a further delay caused by the failure of the first IO to properly record or hand over some of the information Mr and Mrs X originally provided. This caused the need for the “addendum report” which took a further four months.
• After the “addendum report” was ready, it took the Council nearly a year to share this with Mr and Mrs X.
59. Overall, taking into account some disruption by the COVID-19 pandemic, I believe the stage two process took around 22 months longer than it should have done. This was fault, some of which the Council has already accepted, apologised for and paid Mr and Mrs X a financial remedy.
60. The stage three review process was carried out within the expected timescales following the Council’s meeting with Mr X in early 2023.
61. The Council has already paid Mr and Mrs X £1,000 to recognise the distress caused by the delays in the complaints process. Given the total delay, allowing for any COVID-19 disruption, was around 25 months (stages one and two combined), we would have usually recommended the Council pay Mr and Mrs X £1,250. Therefore, the Council should pay them a further £250 to fully remedy the frustration caused by delays in fully responding to their complaint.
62. I also believe these delays led to some uncertainty about the outcome for Mr and Mrs X. Had the timescales at all stages been complied with, it is likely the Council would have been able to obtain the records from Y’s nursery before it closed due to COVID-19 lockdowns. It could then have considered these in its investigation.
63. Although the Council upheld most of the parts of Mr and Mrs X’s complaint which the nursery records would have been relevant, it is possible the findings might have been more definitive or clearer had those records been available. The remaining uncertainty for Mr and Mrs X is significant, given their feelings about what happened and the Council’s actions.

Impact on Mr and Mrs X

64. At both stage two and three of the statutory investigation process, the Council upheld substantial parts of Mr and Mrs X’s complaint. It found, and accepted, that the way it ended Y’s placement with Mr and Mrs X did not follow the correct processes or give them the opportunity to properly respond to any concerns the Council had. This fault caused significant distress and upset to both Mr and Mrs X.
65. Despite these findings the Council’s letters at both stages were short and did not contain any details to suggest the Council had understood the impact of its actions had on Mr and Mrs X. I do not consider the apologies the Council made at these stages were suitable remedies for the injustice caused to Mr and Mrs X.
66. Mr X says the Council’s decision to end Y’s placement and how it went about this affected both his and Mrs X’s health and meant that they could not foster further children, affecting their income.
67. It is clear from the Council’s investigation that social workers and other professionals had concerns about Mr and Mrs X’s parenting of Y. Although there were failures in how the Council considered and responded to those concerns, the underlying concerns remained.
68. Even if the Council had acted properly in reviewing Y’s placement with Mr and Mrs X, it may still have decided to end that placement or impose restrictions on Mr and Mrs X’s ability to foster. The Council has also offered to meet Mr and Mrs X to work towards reinstating their fostering authorisation. However, Mr and Mrs X have, so far, declined these offers. Therefore, I cannot say the Council’s actions were responsible for all the effects Mr and Mrs X claim.
69. However, I am satisfied the fault identified by the Council caused Mr and Mrs X significant distress and remaining uncertainty for which even a detailed apology would not be enough. The Council offered Mr and Mrs X £5,000 in early 2023. I am satisfied that sum would be a suitable remedy for the distress caused by the fault the Council found during its investigation.

Back to top

Agreed action

70. Within one month of my final decision the Council will:
• fully apologise to Mr and Mrs X for the impact the fault it accepted caused them and for the further uncertainty caused by the delays in the Council’s complaints process. The Council should ensure its apology follows the expectations for apologies we set out in our guidance on remedies;
• pay Mr and Mrs X the £5,000 it has already offered plus a further £250 to recognise the further delays I found; and
• renew its offer to Mr and Mrs X to work with them to reinstate their fostering authorisation.
71. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
72. The Council’s stage two and three reports made several service improvement recommendations which the Council says it has caried out. I do not consider I need to make any further service improvement recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

73. I have completed my investigation. There were delays in the statutory complaints process and the Council failed to properly remedy the injustice caused by the fault it accepted. The Council agreed to fully apologise to Mr and Mrs X, pay them a financial remedy and work to restore their fostering authorisation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman