Summary: Mr C says the Council did not support him adequately as he moved out of care and this led him to make poor life choices and gave him too little support in his career. The Council was not at fault as Mr C says: It gave him advice but could not make him take it. However, it is at fault for a failure to use the statutory complaints process for Mr C’s complaint but this fault caused him no injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I have called Mr C, says the Council should have supported him better to help him manage his inheritance and should have helped him more quickly with a move into a business and residential facility.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a council’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

4. I spoke to Mr C’s representative, made enquiries of the Council. I considered all the evidence gathered and applied the relevant law and guidance.
5. I sent a copy of the draft decision to the Council and Mr C’s representative and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

What should happen

The Children Act 1989

6. The Children Act sets out how councils should treat children in their care. The Act was amended by the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000 to ensure that they receive support on leaving care. Since then, the Children and Young Persons Act 2008 has imposed a duty on councils to continue to provide support for former looked after children until they turn 25.
7. Young people to whom the law applies will have a personal advisor (PA). That advisor will try to help them with problems in their lives. The authority must provide financial support if it is required.

The ‘staying put’ scheme

8. Since the Children and Families Act 2014 came into force, councils have been required to facilitate and monitor and support ‘staying put’ arrangements for fostered children.
9. When a fostered child reaches adulthood – on their 18th birthday – if both the child/young person and the foster carers agree, they can begin a ‘staying put arrangement’. The foster parents are no longer called ‘foster parents’ but are now called ‘former foster parents’ but the relationship continues.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005

10. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 says that every adult in the UK has the right to make his or her own decisions and must be assumed to have the capacity to do so unless it is proved otherwise.

Statutory complaints process

11. In 2006, the government issued statutory guidance on how to handle complaints made about services provided under the Children Act 1989.
12. The guidance mandates a three stage complaints procedure with a first stage internal response, a second stage investigation with independent oversight and a final third stage review panel.
13. Complaints that must use the prescribed procedure include:
• complaints about unwelcome or disputed decisions;
• concerns about the quality or appropriateness of a service;
• attitude or behaviour of staff; and
• the impact on a child or young person of applying local authority policy.

What happened

14. Mr C is now nearly 21 years old. His parents separated when he was young and he went into care. His mother has since died and left him about £60,000 which he received when he turned 18. He has a distant relationship with his father who lives abroad and a biological brother who he does not know well. From the age of 14 he has stayed with a foster family with whom he has a good relationship.
15. After leaving school, Mr C went to sixth form college where he took several courses. He got a distinction in one business-related course. He continued to live with his foster carers under a ‘staying put arrangement’.
16. At 18, Mr C’s case was transferred to the Leaving Care Services department (LCS). The notes record that, in late 2016, Mr C was doing ‘brilliantly’ at college with excellent attendance. He said he had begun to build up his own business and had purchased equipment for it
17. The person case notes show that his personal advisor (PA) was in constant touch with him. Within three months of his 18th birthday, the Council gave Mr C details of financial advisors to help him preserve his inheritance.
18. In early 2017, Mr C’s began to attend college less. He says he spent most of his inheritance on nightclubbing, drink, drugs and gambling. He developed anxiety and a physical condition which appeared to be linked. He continued to get on well with his former foster carers. His college allowed him a ‘second chance’.
19. He went back to college gaining a distinction in a marketing course in early 2018. He considered university but also applied for office space at a nearby business facility which encouraged care leavers to set up business and live there. After some contacts between Mr C and the owner of the facility, he held a meeting with the head of Leaving Care Services (LCS) and the owner in June 2018.
20. The manager emailed the PA after the meeting and said he hoped to be able to help Mr C ‘in the medium term’ but did not offer an immediate place.
21. The notes show that Mr C became increasingly frustrated over the second half of 2018. He told his PA and others he felt he had been offered a place at the facility and the Council wasn’t helping him with it. He also complained that the Council had not helped him sufficiently when he received his inheritance.
22. In September 2018, Mr C made a formal complaint to the Council. He said:
1. The Council failed to help him get a place at the business facility;
2. Since turning 18 and inheriting the money, he had been given no support. He says he felt morally compromised by his inheritance and began drinking, having unprotected sex and taking drugs as a result. He said he was offered no advice in dealing with the money and the Council should have made a safeguarding referral to protect him from himself.
3. The Council had refused to fund his course at a college nearby and suggested he applied for a student loan instead and his PA had used unnecessarily strong language in making the suggestion; and
4. He thought he had used £1500 of his independent living grant but had been told that there was money left. He considered that the Council was acting in an uncaring fashion and was not supporting him in transitioning to adulthood.
23. The Council responded to his stage one complaint. Officer O, the Council’s Leaving Care leader said:
1. The Council could not allow Mr C to move into the business facility without carrying out checks to see if it was suitable. That work was still not done;
2. The Council had tried to arrange for financial advice for Mr C on many occasions both before and after he turned 18. The Council also gave advice on safe sex and on drinking and drugs but, as Mr C was an adult, it had no power to make him do anything against his will;
3. The Council could not pay for courses for those leaving care so the advice to apply for a grant was correct. It was true that Mr C’s PA had used colourful language but this was as part of a relationship where such language was commonplace on both sides. Mr C had described his PA as ‘the best PA ever’. Nonetheless, the Council accepted that the language was inappropriate and had warned PAs not to use such language in future; and
4. LCS had never paid allowances to care leavers. The head of LCS said he was surprised to receive Mr C’s complaint as he had always been enthusiastic about the department and had contributed towards it. He offered to meet with Mr C, his PA, her boss and his advocate to ‘get some clarity on the issues’.
24. Mr C refused the meeting as he felt the department was biased against him and had not properly considered his complaint. He also said that the head of LCS should not have dealt with the complaint at stage one as it was his department that Mr C was complaining about.
25. Mr C escalated his complaint to stage two. He said:
1. The head of LCS should not have responded to the complaint;
2. The complaint response had not dealt with all issues. It had not considered his claim that the Council should have made a safeguarding referral;
3. He questioned why he had not been eligible for an allowance despite having inherited the money. He said he had been told that he would be eligible for benefits when his inheritance had depleted below a certain level but this had not happened. He wanted his benefits backdated.
4. The Council had not provided financial advice but had told him to take advice.
5. He had been told that the business park placement would be arranged by August 2018. He wanted the Council to ‘honour what they originally promised to which was a room with a period of free rent, office space and my ILG’.
26. The Council responded in late November 2018. It again dismissed his complaint.

Was there fault causing injustice?

27. Mr C’s complaint has four main headings which I will deal with in turn before dealing with other points which have arisen during the complaints process.

Failure to gain place in the residential/business facility

28. The original email on file from the owner of the facility says the owner hoped to offer Mr C a place ‘in the medium term’. There is no evidence that I have seen of an agreement for Mr C to move into the facility by August 2018.
29. The Council had a duty to ensure that the facility was safe for young people leaving its care. It would have been negligent of it not to do so. The Council has now completed the checks and Mr C has moved in. I do not find fault.

Failure to provide advice on investing inheritance

30. The notes show that Council officers including Mr C’s PA advised him to get financial advice frequently. They show Mr C said he was happy with his choices. Ultimately, as an adult with the mental capacity to make decisions, he had the right to do so and the Council could do no more than it did.
31. At many meetings, Mr C’s PA readvised Mr C to seek advice on how to invest his inheritance. Mr C said he intended to do so but also said he was enjoying spending it: ‘I am just having a really good time at the moment. I am 19. I’ve got money, good friends and I am having a laugh.’’
32. Mr C says the Council should have given him financial advice itself rather than advise him to go to a financial advisor but the Council is not able to do so. It was appropriate that it should direct him to take advice from an expert. The evidence suggests he did not do so. I do not find fault.

Failure to advise on drink/drugs

33. The notes show his PA frequently warned him about drink, drugs and unsafe sex. Mr C says she should have done more but Mr C was an adult. She could not stop him. He also claimed to have learned from previous mistakes. On one occasion he said ‘I do not binge anymore and know my limits. I have had a few situations where I’ve not been in control and don’t remember things so now I just have what I can handle. Yes, I admit to trying a few different drugs and had a bit of a ‘blow out’ with a friend but to be honest, it wasn’t all that and cost loads of money. I like to buy drinks for my friends and have a good time at the club each weekend’.
34. Mr C says his PA should have made a safeguarding referral but it is not clear on what grounds she could have done so. Mr C now recognises that he was making unwise choices but he was an adult and the Council could not stop him.
35. Mr C says the Council should have stopped him gambling. Again, while having sympathy, I do not see how the Council could have helped. Gambling is legal and he bet his money hoping to win. It was not the Council’s fault that he did not.

Failure to provide allowance or apply for/advise on benefits

36. Mr C says the Council also failed to help him financially by:
1. Telling him he would get an allowance and then ‘withholding’ it from him; and
2. Failing to discuss available state benefits with him.
37. The head of LCS said, in his stage one response, the Council does not pay allowances to care leavers. It cannot be at fault for failing to do so in this case.
38. It therefore seems that Mr C was describing, in his complaint, an occasion when his PA tried to tell him that, once his savings fell below a certain level, (£16,000) he could apply for jobseekers’ allowance or universal credit.
39. Mr C says the Council should have applied for benefits on his behalf but this was not the Council’s role. Its role was to advise and support him. I do not find fault.

Statutory complaints process

40. Mr C says it was wrong that the head of LCS wrote the Council’s response to his initial complaint because he was complaining about LCS.
41. Mr C said, on receiving the stage one response, both that the head of LCS was compromised by his closeness to the case and that Mr C had only met him three times so he did not know the facts of the case.
42. I accept therefore that the head of LCS was in a good position to write a response having knowledge of the case but sufficient distance to maintain objectivity. His response was fair and balanced and he invited Mr C to discuss his concerns. Mr C refused the invitation. I do not find fault.
43. However, the Council should have considered this matter under the statutory complaints procedure because this was a Children Act complaint brought by a young person complaining about the impact of Council decisions on his life.
44. However, I have found that this did not cause Mr C any injustice because the head of LCS considered his complaint fairly, as did the reviewer who conducted the stage two review. Thereafter, the Ombudsman reviewed the case again. Therefore, I find fault causing no injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

45. I have investigated the complaint and have decided there was some fault but no injustice. I have closed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman