Summary: There was no fault the Council decided not to accept an independent panel’s recommendation about a remedy for Mr and Mrs X’s injustice. The Council considered the matter after a three-stage Children Act 1989 complaints procedure and it took a decision it was able to take. There is no obvious flaw or unreasonableness in its decision, and we therefore cannot criticise it.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X complained the Council have not followed a recommendation which an independent panel made, in relation to the amount it should pay them as a remedy, for earlier faults an independent investigation identified.
2. Mr and Mrs X said the impact of this decision meant a child they were providing foster care for, has lost out on an important life experience, and this has caused them distress through seeing the impact on the child.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered Mr and Mrs X’s complaint to us and the information they provided.
6. I considered the Council’s comments and the documents it provided.
7. 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

The statutory children’s complaints procedure

8. 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.
9. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. 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 investigate the complaint and an independent person (IP) who is responsible for overseeing the investigation and ensuring its independence.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.

Summary of key events

13. Mr and Mrs X’s concern about the Council’s response to the independent investigation, relates to the fact that a child they were fostering (G), missed out on an important family holiday because of fault in the Council’s actions.
14. Mr and Mrs X said to put G back in the place where they would have been, if but for this fault, would be for the Council to pay for the cost of another like holiday experience, so that G can make up for the missed experience.
15. In September 2022, Mr and Mrs X made a complaint about several matters which included a failure by Childrens Social Care, to obtain a passport for G. Because of this failure, G was unable to join the rest of their family on a foreign holiday, which included other children as well as Mr and Mrs X.
16. In November, Mr and Mrs X asked for the Council to investigate their complaint at stage two of the procedure and in December, the stage two investigation started. In late January the appointed investigator circulated their report.
17. I have considered the documents from Mr and Mrs X’s complaint, and it appears the report produced by the independent investigator, at stage two of the complaint procedure, demonstrates a proper consideration of the complaint.
18. Following the Council’s response to the stage two investigators report, in March, Mr and Mrs X asked for their complaint to be considered by a stage three review panel.
19. In June, the stage three review panel looked at the complaint and circulated a report two days later. According to the stage three panel report, it said the panel chair met with Mr and Mrs X to discuss the issues they saw as being outstanding.
20. The panel report sets out the nine separate complaints it said were under its consideration. It also said the stage two investigation report was thorough and the findings evidence based. The panel also acknowledged the Council had still not obtained a passport for G at that point.
21. The panel then made several recommendations for the Council. Significantly these included a recommendation that the Council pay Mr and Mrs X £10,000, which was the base cost of the total holiday experience that G missed out on. This included the payment for all the adults and children who did go on that holiday and not just the expense for G alone.
22. In July, a director from the Council wrote to Mr and Mrs X, with their response to the stage three panel recommendations. In that letter, they said they had read the panel’s report and gave their response to each of the nine recommendations the panel made.
23. On the recommendation highlighted at paragraph 21, it disagreed with the recommendation here. The letter said the director would not agree to pay the amount to replicate the total cost of the holiday for all participants, as recommended, because it was public money.
24. Additionally, the director invited Mr and Mrs X to let them know the actual expense incurred solely by G’s holiday booking and said they would re imburse this cost. The director also said they would pay Mr and Mrs X an additional amount to recognise the injustice caused by faults which the Council accepted.
25. In response to my query about G’s passport, the Council replied saying it had now obtained a passport for G.

My findings

26. Mr and Mrs X were happy with the recommendations made by the stage three review panel. The contentious issue is the Council’s decision not to refund Mr and Mrs X with the whole cost of the original holiday. Mr and Mrs X intended to use this to fund the same participants going on another holiday, to replace this as a ‘like for like’ experience, for G’s benefit.
27. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong or whether we agree or disagree with what it decided. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made this decision.
28. I have looked the steps the organisation took to consider the issue, which included an appropriately senior council officer who looked at the stage three review panel’s findings. Having done so they decided to refund the actual expense Mr and Mrs X incurred and lost out on, as well as an additional symbolic remedy for the faults earlier identified.
29. the Council’s reason for disagreeing does not appear obviously unreasonable and in the absence of any obvious flaws, I cannot question whether that decision was right or wrong.

Back to top

Final decision

30. There was no fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman