Summary: There was no fault in the Council’s decision-making in relation to allegations against Mr and Mrs X. The Council considered the information it had and there is no obvious flaw in the way it decided. Additionally, there was no fault the Council decided not to review its earlier finding on Mr X, after it was aware of flaws in the initial investigation by a fostering agency. However, there was fault in how it communicated its decision it had overturned its earlier findings about Mrs X. That fault caused Mrs X an injustice and the Council have agreed to my recommendation to remedy Mrs X’s injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X complained about how a fostering agency, dealt with allegations made about them as foster carers. They say the agency specifically:

1. did not carry out a thorough investigation into allegations made about them;
2. did not support them during the removal of foster children from their care;
3. presented wrong information in meetings which looked at their care standards, and;
4. did not update the Council with new information in good time.

2. Mr and Mrs X also complain the Council did not properly consider new information about these allegations, after the agency admitted its investigation had been poor. They also say it did not give them updates about any reviews in good time.
3. I will refer to the fostering agency as Company K.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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)
6. We also 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)
7. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
8. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I spoke to Mr and Mrs X and considered the information they provided.
10. I considered the Council’s comments and the documents it and Company K provided.
11. I also considered:
• Working Together to Safeguard Children, Department for Education 2018.
• The Council’s safeguarding procedures.
12. Mr and Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

Allegations against Foster carers

13. The National Fostering Minimum Standards says investigations into allegations against carers should be carried out quickly and should provide protection to the child but also support to the person subject to the investigation. Foster carers should be told in writing about any allegations against them and given information about the timescale for completing the investigation. They should also be told about the payment of allowance and any fee while investigations are continuing.
14. A council shall not allow the placement of a child with a particular person to continue if it appears to them that the placement is no longer the most suitable way of performing their duty. Where it appears to an authority that to continue a placement would be harmful to the welfare of the child concerned, the council shall remove the child forthwith.
15. Part 5 of the 2011 Fostering Services Regulations provides for the assessment of foster carers. A council must carry out an assessment which is referred to a Fostering Panel. A Panel can only make a recommendation as to whether the person is suitable.
16. The Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) is a person responsible for managing and overseeing investigations into allegations that somebody who works with children has behaved in a way that may pose a risk to children.
17. The fostering minimum standards say “Allegations against people that work with children or members of the fostering household are reported by the fostering service to the LADO. This includes allegations that on the face of it may appear relatively insignificant or that have also been reported directly to the police or Children and Family Services.”
18. One of the standards for fostering services is to “ensure that a clear distinction is made between investigation into allegations of harm and discussions over standards of care. Investigations which find no evidence of harm should not become procedures looking into poor standards of care - these should be treated separately.”
19. It will be a matter of professional judgement for the social worker, based on their knowledge of the child and carer, that the child’s welfare is not being adequately safeguarded. Children cannot always describe unhappiness so understanding what the child’s daily life in the placement is like; routine, mealtimes and whether the foster child is treated the same way as the birth children, is key to understanding what may be having a negative impact on the child.

Termination of a placement

20. If a decision is made to terminate a foster placement, the Care, Planning and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010 and 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.
21. 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.
22. The Council or an independent agency assesses foster carers. The fostering panel makes recommendations about whether a person should be approved as a foster carer. If a panel recommends that a person should no longer be a foster carer, the fostering agency can decide if it accepts that recommendation. If the agency accepts such a recommendation, the foster carer can appeal to the Independent Review Mechanism, which is an independent and external process.

Role of the LADO

23. Every council should have an officer, or team of officers, to manage and oversee allegations against people who work with children. These officers are known as local authority designated officers (LADOs). (Working together to safeguard children 2018)
24. LADOs provide advice and guidance to employers and voluntary organisations on dealing with allegations against employees or volunteers. They should ensure relevant agencies share information. They should also monitor the progress of cases and ensure allegations are dealt with consistently, fairly and without delay. (Working together to safeguard children 2018)
25. The Council follows the procedure Allegations Against Persons who Work with Children. The procedures say the threshold for consideration of action, is where there is a concern someone who works with children may pose a risk of harm to a child.
26. These procedures say the LADO should monitor the progress of each case, either fortnightly or monthly depending on its complexity. It says the LADO can do this through direct liaison with the local authority children’s social care, or the employer, as appropriate.
27. They say the LADO and senior officer should consider if it needs to obtain further detail to establish whether the allegation is false or unfounded. The procedures say there are four potential outcomes. One of these, the substantiated outcome, is defined when ‘there is sufficient identifiable evidence to prove the allegation’.
28. The procedures say in any enquiry to identify the level of risk it should consider any other previous allegations to consider whether there is a pattern developing. It also says the aim is to resolve cases as quickly as possible but recognises some cases are more complex.
29. The Council’s procedures say the aim of an investigation is to obtain, as far as possible, a fair, balanced, and accurate record in order to consider the appropriateness of disciplinary action and / or the risk of harm to children. Its purpose is not to prove or disprove the allegation.

What happened

30. Company K have responsibility for Mr and Mrs X’s registration as foster carers. They both live in the Council’s area. They had previously fostered a child, who I will refer to as G, who was under the care of Authority A, and at the time of the subsequent allegations, they were fostering other children who were under the care of Authority B.

Initial allegation (November 2021)

31. In late November, Authority A told the Council LADO about an allegation made by G, where they told their social worker that Mr X had assaulted them when they were previously living with Mr and Mrs X.
32. The LADO recorded the allegation and decided Company K would carry out an investigation. The LADO identified the allegation was about the behaviour of Mr X and that it was aware of a previous incident, involving Mr X and another child.
33. The record also said an investigation would need to consider whether Mrs X knew about the incident, because if so, there may have been a possible ‘failure to protect’ by her. The record said if the investigation did not substantiate the initial allegation, there would be no allegation against Mrs X.

Removal of children

34. In early December, a social worker from Authority B went to Mr and Mrs X’s home and removed the remaining children who were under Authority B’s care. Mr and Mrs X’s supervising social worker (employed by Company K) was also present and the evidence shows this was a fraught encounter. Mrs X subsequently complained to Company K because she said her supervising social worker did not give her enough support during this encounter.

Position of Trust Meetings (December – February 2022)

35. The following day, the LADO chaired the first position of trust meeting (POT). Present at this meeting were representatives of Company K, both social workers referred to in paragraph 34, and G’s social worker. The record of the meeting highlights the same initial allegation against Mr X.
36. In the comments section, the LADO recorded new allegations relating to Mrs X, because the social workers raised their concerns with the LADO, about their encounter with Mrs X, when they removed the children.
37. At the conclusion of the meeting, the LADO made a record that it was a unanimous decision of all professionals present, that there should be an investigation. It said the allegations included:
1. Mr X had behaved in a way that may have harmed a child, and;
2. concern about Mrs X’s suitability to practice because of her behaviour around children.
38. In January and February, the LADO chaired two further POT meetings. In both meetings the LADO recorded that the investigation would have to wait for the police investigation to be finished.

Position of Trust Meetings (March - May)

39. In the March POT meeting, the LADO noted Company K could now begin their investigation and invite Mr and Mrs X to give their views on the allegations. The notes reflect the LADO recorded taking their views was an important part of the process.
40. In May, after Mr and Mrs X had given their responses, the LADO held a final POT meeting. Present at the meeting was a manager from Company K and Mr and Mrs X’s supervising social worker. The notes of the meeting say:
• Mr X had denied the initial allegation saying he had no recollection of it ever happening;
• Mr X said the size of the room involved was not large enough for two people, and;
• Mrs X gave an explanation around her actions.
41. At the conclusion of the report, the LADO substantiated the allegations against both Mr and Mrs X. In respect of Mr X, the LADO said:
• They heard sufficient evidence G had suffered a degree of trauma while in their care;
• G had been clear, consistent, and detailed in their allegation, and;
• on the balance of probabilities, the LADO believed this to be an honest account.
42. In relation to Mrs X, the LADO said they had concerns there had been a pattern of low-level issues, meaning this created an environment, which was not ‘trauma informed’ and which did not meet the complete needs of the children.
43. G’s social worker put forward the child’s voice. They said in their professional opinion they believed G’s account was genuine, based on their knowledge of them. The social worker also highlighted other factors which led them to believe the children had not progressed as expected in this placement.
44. The LADO completed a case closure summary document. In that document the LADO recorded both the voice of the child and then the adult respectively. The LADO made a note all the participants in the meeting agreed the decision about both Mr and Mrs X.

Clarification by Company K

45. In late May, the manager from Company K, sent the LADO an update asking them to clarify the December POT meeting minutes. The evidence shows they asked for the Council to redact the minutes, which related to allegations of numerous concerns about Mrs X’s parenting skills, apparently shared by Mrs X’s nursery staff. The manager said they had not made this comment.

Initial complaint and the response by Company K.

46. In July 2022, Mr and Mrs X made a complaint about the investigation Company K had completed. They also complained about how it supported them during the investigation.

Company K review of its investigation

47. In August 2022, a different manager reviewed its earlier investigation and in early September they completed a report. According to the report, the manager said Company K had not managed the allegations against Mr and Mrs X in a ‘robust and professional manner’. They also said they believed this cast doubt on the POT process.
48. Concerning Mr X, the reviewing manager highlighted an inaccuracy in notes of a discussion about the allegation between the initial investigating manager (from Company K) and Mr X. The reviewing manager said a denial by Mr X, in which an audio record demonstrates Mr X said “Absolutely not, not in this house”, was wrongly recorded by a note taker as Mr X saying, “That’s not how it happened”.
49. The reviewing manager also said in their opinion, they believed the investigating manager did not properly take account of the feedback from Mr and Mrs X and they highlighted the earlier retraction of comments about Mrs X at paragraph 45.

The response to Company K’s investigative review

50. In September, Company K sent this report to the Council and according to their notes, in late September, the LADO overturned their initial outcome for Mrs X and said it was no longer substantiated. Company K also noted the allegation against Mr X remained substantiated.

The Council’s review

51. The Council started a review in September 2022, about the allegations against Mrs X. The LADO noted it now had additional information available which was:
• Company K had managed past concerns about Mrs X as care standards, and;
• the lack of support for Mrs X during the children’s removal.
52. The LADO concluded that had they known this information earlier, then Mrs X would not have met the threshold for an investigation, and the outcome would have been for advice and consultation only. The LADO asked for a peer review, and according to that review another LADO agreed with the updated position.
53. In March, and in response to a follow-up request by Mrs X, the council confirmed it would send Mrs X a letter outlining the revised position in her case. However, the Council did not send this letter until September 2023.
54. In April, Mrs X sent the Council an email and additional information including about the layout of their home and questions she believed, the initial investigation had not properly considered.
55. In May, the LADO discussed the allegation against Mr X in a supervision meeting. The evidence shows it acknowledged Mr X had denied the allegation. The notes of the meeting are recorded as saying the Council decided not to review the allegation against Mr X. It said this was because it also had information from the child and their social worker, which it considered to be reliable. Around this time, the Council wrote to Mrs X and told her it had not agreed to review the outcome for Mr X.

My findings

The complaint investigation by the agency

56. Mr and Mrs X complained about the actions of Company K as highlighted in paragraphs 1a-d). I have not reinvestigated these allegations because I could not add to the previous complaint investigation carried out by Company K. It has completed all three stages of its complaint procedures. From the evidence I have seen, Mr and Mrs X have already had an independent review of their complaint as it affects Company K’s actions. However, I have commented at paragraph 68 about an unremedied injustice to Mrs X caused by Company K’s fault here.

The role of the LADO

57. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. It is not my role to consider the allegations against Mr & Mrs X and determine whether they should have been substantiated. My role is to consider if the Council has followed the correct processes in its decision-making. If there was no fault in the decision-making, we cannot question the outcome or find a council at fault because a person disagrees with its decision.
58. LADO’s do not investigate; they provide oversight and guidance where appropriate. It was Company K’s responsibility to investigate the allegations. This included seeking Mr and Mrs X’s views and considering evidence. The LADO needed to make sure Company K had done this.
59. It was not the LADO’s role to intervene in Company K’s investigative process. They simply needed to make sure that they conducted the process quickly and fairly, and, if the allegations were substantiated or not.
60. It appears the LADO did this. I find there was no fault in how the Council dealt with the initial allegations based on the information that others presented to it. Nor is there any evident flaw in how it decided to substantiate the allegations after this investigation. The available information shows it considered the evidence and from the information I have seen, this does not appear to have been an unreasonable view to reach.

The allegation against Mr X

61. Following a review of Company K’s initial investigation, the reviewing manager expressed concern about how robust that investigation had been. They also expressed a concern the investigation did not properly take account of Mr and Mrs X’s views, including the size of the room. They also highlighted a flaw in the record of Mr X’s response to the allegation.
62. The Council have provided me with evidence it decided not to review its decision about Mr X. That is a decision it is entitled to take and in the absence of any fault in how it arrived at this decision, I cannot criticise it.

The allegation against Mrs X

63. Shortly after the final POT meeting in May, the Council had information that retracted some of the detail recorded in the December POT meeting notes about the broader allegations against Mrs X. I do not find there was any fault the Council did not review Mrs X’s position at that point. Irrespective of the clarification, the evidence from the final POT meeting held in May, shows the meeting participants were in unanimous agreement that there were still concerns about Mrs X.
64. In September, the LADO reviewed their earlier decision about Mrs X. They then overturned this decision and said this was because it had new information, that was previously unknown, and this was in addition to the clarification I mention in paragraph 63. The LADO asked for this decision to be ‘peer reviewed’ and checked by a manager and they agreed.
65. As highlighted in paragraph 53, the Council did not send this outcome to Mrs X when it decided in September 2022. The earliest point Mrs X had this in writing from the Council, was in March 2023. Mrs X did not have the detailed reasoning until September 2023. This was fault and it caused an injustice because it left Mrs X with a degree of uncertainty about her position for longer than necessary.
66. During the stage two independent report, Company K identified poor record keeping and this is fault, which it has accepted. Notwithstanding I have exercised my discretion not to re investigate this matter, this fault caused Mrs X an injustice, some of which is unremedied.
67. I have considered Mrs X’s injustice in more detail at paragraphs 68 and 69.

Injustice to Mrs X

68. For the fault by Company K (paragraph 66), which meant Mrs X had allegations against her wrongly substantiated, caused by poor record keeping, Mrs X has suffered an injustice. She experienced avoidable and unnecessary distress about her status between May and September 2022, until the Council overturned its decision.
69. The fault by the Council in not then properly communicating it had overturned its decision in her case (paragraph 53 and 65), further added to Mrs X’s injustice because it left her with further avoidable uncertainty between September 2022 and March 2023.
70. I made a recommendation to the Council about a symbolic remedy to recognise Mrs X’s injustice and it agreed.

Back to top

Agreed action

71. Within one month of the date of my decision, the Council have agreed to pay Mrs X £500 for the avoidable distress and uncertainty she has been caused by the faults I have highlighted.
72. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

73. I am now ending my investigation with a finding of fault and that fault has caused an injustice, for which the Council have agreed a remedy.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman