Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions while Mr X was a foster carer. This is because the complaint is not separable from matters which could have been considered under the Independent Review Mechanism, which was better placed than the Ombudsman to do so.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Mr X, complains that the Council was at fault in its treatment of him and his wife, and this lead to the flawed decision to deregister them as foster carers.

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. Mr X says the Council’s officers were at fault in the way they treated him and his wife while they were foster carers. He says this culminated in their deregistration as foster carers by the agency decision maker.
6. Mr X says that the consideration of the matter by the Council’s fostering panel was flawed. He says that numerous relevant documents were withheld from the panel and that its decision to recommend deregistration was therefore flawed.
7. The Agency Decision Maker made a Qualifying Determination that Mr and Mrs X were unsuitable to continue as foster carers. He advised them of their right to refer the matter to the Independent Review Mechanism (IRM). Mr and Mrs X declined to use their right to go to the IRM and the Agency Decision Maker subsequently confirmed the decision to deregister.
8. Mr and Mrs X then made a complaint about their treatment by the Council. The Council has declined to consider it, in part because the substantive matter could have been the subject of a review under the IRM. Mr X does not accept this. He says he wants to complain about misconduct on the part of officers, and no longer wishes to challenge the decision to deregister. As such, he contends that the IRM is not appropriate.
9. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. The evidence the Council has provided shows that, at the point at which the Agency Decision Maker made the Qualifying Decision, Mr X did wish to challenge both the decision and the way it was made. Referral to the IRM would have been appropriate at the point at which it became available, and Mr X could have asked for consideration of whether the alleged fault on the Council’s part had contributed to the outcome. It was his choice not to take this route, but it would have been reasonable for him to do so.
10. Mr X now wishes only to address the alleged misconduct by officers, without challenging the decision on deregistration. The matters are not separable. The Ombudsman does not investigate complaints about actions in isolation from their consequences. The consequences of the actions about which Mr X complains are bound up with the decision to deregister, which is a matter the IRM was better placed than the Ombudsman to consider.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is not separable from matters which could have been considered under the IRM.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman