Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about payments made through the ‘Staying Put’ scheme. This is because we would be unlikely to achieve a different outcome or add to the Council’s investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not pay the correct fostering allowances when the child he fostered became eligible for the staying put scheme.
2. Mr X said it has caused financial difficulty and distress.
3. Mr X would like the allowance payment corrected, receive back payment and compensation to reflect time and trouble.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact 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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. At the age of eighteen young people can no longer legally be considered ‘in care’, any fostering arrangements in place would end. A ‘staying put’ agreement can be made, if both the child and foster carer agree. Under the agreement it allows a foster carer to receive an allowance that may not be counted toward any eligible means tested benefits.
8. Mr X fostered a child (Y). When Y turned eighteen, they made an agreement for Y to remain living with Mr X. This meant Mr X could apply for a staying put allowance.
9. At first the Council said it could not pay Mr X directly due to his registration with a fostering agency. Later Mr X deregistered and the Council paid him £240 a week directly.
10. Mr X said the direct payments should be £400 a week in line with payments the Council made to the fostering agency. He also complained his payment arrangement negatively affected his tax and benefits entitlements.
11. The Council said its weekly payment under the scheme was £300 a week. Mr X received £240 plus an additional £100 from charging Y rent for his room which was over this amount. This was the arrangement which had been agreed with Mr X and Y when the scheme started.
12. The Council offered to complete a financial assessment to understand the negative financial impact Mr X was claiming.
13. I acknowledge Mr X disagrees with the amount the Council has been paying him under the staying put scheme, However, the Council has offered to reconsider the arrangements if Mr X agrees to a new financial assessment. This is reasonable to address the matters Mr X complains about. If we were to investigate it would be unlikely that we would achieve a different outcome or add to the Council’s investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely we would achieve a different outcome and we would not add to the Council’s investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman