Summary: Mr X complains that the Council unreasonably stopped financial support for his adopted son in breach of a previous agreement and failed to respond adequately to his complaints. He also complains about comments made by Council staff. The complaint about the breach of the previous agreement has been made too late and there are no good reasons to investigate now. There is see no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to cease financial support or in the comments complained of.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I have called Mr X, complains that the Council stopped providing financial support for his adopted son, B, breaking a previous agreement that support would be in place until B’s 18th birthday. He says the Council’s response to his complaints about this, and in particular about the officers involved in his financial assessment, is inadequate.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated the Council’s actions from 2019 onwards.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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)
5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have spoken to Mr X and considered information provided by Mr X and the Council including Mr X’s recording of his October 2019 financial assessment meeting. I also sent Mr X and the Council a draft version of this statement for their comment.

Back to top

What I found

7. In 2015 Mr X and his wife adopted a one-year old child, B, who they had previously been fostering. In its report to the court in favour of an adoption order, the Council noted Mr X’s gross income.
8. Mr and Mrs X were advised by letter at this time that an adoption support allowance of £317.51 would continue until B’s 18th birthday with the proviso that this allowance was subject to annual review and that payments might change depending on their financial situation, B’s needs and scales of adoption support.
9. No annual review took place in 2016. In 2017 the Council changed its means testing policy for adoption support. Following an assessment under the new policy, the Council reduced the family’s adoption support allowance to zero. Mr X challenged this decision. He asked the Council to honour its original commitment or he would seek legal clarification of his position.
10. In its response the Council acknowledged it had provided a written commitment that financial support would be in place until B was 18. It proposed a “Compromise Agreement” under which it would continue to pay £317.51 for two years. Mr X was advised by letter in September 2017 that at the end of this period the payments would be means tested. Mr X accepted the deferment. He also agreed with the Council that the next assessment would be held in October 2019 and that the assessment meeting would include the person deciding the assessment result.
11. Prior to October 2019 Mr X received letters from the Council proposing financial assessments. Mr X successfully argued these were premature. An assessment meeting was held at the Council’s offices on 10 October 2019 and included the Council’s assessor and a senior manager. Mr X recorded this meeting, during which he asked the assessor to provide him with her assessment decision before he left, which she said she could not do. Mr X also made various accusations against the Council.
12. The Council then wrote to Mr X to advise that based on the October assessment it had decided to cease payments. Mr X complained, stating that the Council’s promptness in performing the assessment and its requests to perform an assessment before October were evidence of a prior intention to cease payments. He also complained that factors relating to the family finances, such as the instability of his wife’s and his own work and his son’s requirement for extra tutoring as a result of health problems had not been taken into account. Finally, he complained about comments made by the Council assessor during the recorded meeting and her decision to terminate the meeting.
13. In its response the Council said it was satisfied its officer had behaved professionally and that the decision to cease support was correct. It advised Mr X that if the family’s circumstances changed, he could apply for a re-assessment. It also suggested Mr X request a review of his son’s needs from the Council’s adoption support team.
14. In January 2020 Mr X complained to us that the Council had broken the 2015 agreement. He asked that the adoption allowance be reinstated.

Back to top

Analysis

15. We cannot investigate when someone takes more than 12 months to complain about something the Council has done, unless we decide there are good reasons. Mr X’s opinion is that as the means testing policy was not applied to his family until October 2020, his complaint is within this time limit.
16. In 2017 Mr X formulated his view that the Council’s new means testing policy could not apply to his family without breaching the 2015 agreement. He advised the Council of this at that time and said he would consider seeking legal advice if it did not honour the original arrangements. The Council’s 2017 correspondence with Mr X makes clear it considered the means testing policy could legitimately be applied to his family and that the two-year deferment of the policy’s application was a compromise. Having accepted the deferment there is no evidence Mr X challenged the Council’s position again before the 2019 assessment. The complaint about the means testing policy and its conflict with the 2015 agreement has therefore been made more than two years too late, and I cannot see a good reason to investigate now.
17. I must therefore treat the means testing policy as having been correctly applied to Mr X, as his family falls within the group subject to assessment under the policy. I have seen no evidence of fault in relation to the financial assessment. The Council has advised Mr X to seek a fresh assessment if his circumstances change and to request a needs assessment for his son from the adoption support team. This is good practice.
18. The Council was premature in its requests for an assessment, but this was rectified, with the meeting held at the agreed time. There is no evidence the assessment was a foregone conclusion or that Council staff were unprofessional. I have listened to Mr X’s recording of the assessment meeting. While comments from the Council assessor could have been better phrased, she was clearly discomfited by Mr X’s accusations and demand that the assessment be provided on the spot. I can find no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

19. I have completed my investigation with a finding of no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman