Summary: The Ombudsman found fault on Ms D’s complaint against the Council. It failed to bring her case back to the adoption panel promptly and did not pursue one of its recommendations. It failed to provide her with a copy of her file as it said it would. She was given incorrect information about missing documents. It communicated poorly with her, failed to give her clear information about its role with the new regional adoption agency, failed to give her support, and delayed dealing with her complaint and case. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Ms D complains the Council, since approving her as a suitable adopter, failed to:
1. keep her adoption file up to date with accurate information;
2. act on the promises it gave her following a meeting in 2019;
3. act on a request for information from the adoption panel;
4. provide her with a social worker for 2 years;
5. ensure it did not lose important adoption documents; and
6. provide her with a copy of her file when requested.
2. As a result, she felt humiliated, unfairly treated, suffered stress, and has the uncertainty of not knowing whether she would have had an older child placed with her. In addition, she also lost the opportunity of having her own family.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have exercised discretion to investigate her complaint from January 2019. This is because of the impact of Covid-19 and national restrictions along with the Council’s poor complaint handling.
4. I investigated complaint e) and f) even though these are complaints Ms D could have taken to the Information Commissioner’s Office which would mean they are outside of our jurisdiction as this is a statutory tribunal. I decided to consider these as I am satisfied these are incidental to her main complaint which is within our jurisdiction.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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)
6. 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)
7. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)

Back to top

Regionalised Adoption Agencies

8. The government decided all councils would become part of a Regionalised Adoption Agency (RAA) by 2020. This meant councils merging to provide adoption services. RAAs act on behalf of each member council. The aim of RAAs is to speed up matching, improve adopter recruitment, and improve the life chances of some of the most vulnerable children.
9. The London Borough of Wandsworth (the Council ) merged with other councils to become Adoption London South (ALS). While ALS is a separate body with its own management structure and resources, it delivers adoption services on behalf of the Council.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered all the information Ms D sent, the notes I made of our telephone conversations, and the Council’s response to my enquiries, a copy of which I sent her. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Ms D and the Council. I considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

11. The process for becoming an adopter involves contacting an adoption agency which arranges to meet the applicant. A social worker will visit an applicant on several occasions to carry out an assessment. The aim of the assessment is to check whether the applicant is suitable to become an adoptive parent. The assessment report goes to an independent adoption panel which makes a recommendation to the adoption agency.
12. Once the agency decides an applicant can adopt, it begins the process of finding a child for the applicant. The agency works with local authorities to find the right child and a matching panel makes the final decision.
13. Ms D complains despite the Council approving her as a suitable adopter in 2015, it never gave her the opportunity to get matched and adopt a child. She believes this was because: it failed to keep her adoption file up to date (medical and financial information); it put pressure on her to withdraw her application; it tried to deregister her because of her weight; it did not allocate her a social worker for two years. She says its concerns about her finances were not due to any change in her circumstances but, because she had asked for an income replacement.
14. These are key events:

2018:

15. December: The Adoption and Permanence Panel (the panel) considered a request to deregister Ms D as an approved adopter. This was because the Council had concerns about her weight, her finances, and her working relationship with it. The panel deferred its decision to ‘allow for more current information to be provided’. It wanted a full review of her health, finances, future working arrangements, adoption leave options, and current support network. It also recommended exploring an independent reconciliation process to restore a positive working relationship between her and the Council.

2019:

16. January: The social worker met Ms D.
17. February: At another meeting, Ms D talked about some past injuries and gave a written description of her support network. She gave details of her savings, and the records show there was a ‘thorough discussion’ with her about her current finances. She told the Council she would end her mortgage payments that month so will have extra money spare. The Council asked her to provide copy mortgage statements.
18. She agreed to attend the next panel meeting later that month but, this was postponed until March as the medical advisor was ill.
19. March: After the Council asked her to provide a copy mortgage statement, and confirmation she had paid it off, Ms D gave the Council financial information about her mortgage. She expressed concern as she provided details about her income in January and February, which included bank statements and proof of identity. The panel meeting was delayed because it prioritised a child on another case.
20. In a report for her annual review, the Council noted she provided proof of paying off her mortgage. It gave details of her finances, her employer’s adoption leave entitlement but, noted concerns about the amount of financial assistance she wanted. It recorded the amount she wanted was a ‘significant concern’ as it was unlikely any agency would agree this amount. Ms D disputed the accuracy of this information. The report also noted the medical advisor’s consistent recommendation not to register her as an adopter because of her weight. Ms D says the Council had no policy about the weight of potential adopters. The report concluded the Council could not recommend her as an approved adopter because of her financial situation and her relationship with the department. It recommended deregistration.
21. May: An earlier panel meeting was cancelled as the Council could not get enough panel members. Ms D could not attend the rearranged panel meeting because of work, saying the Council had not given her enough notice. The Council had given her about two weeks’ notice.
22. June: The Council decided not to present Ms D’s case to the panel because it wanted to discuss a way forward with her first.
23. August: Ms D met with a Council officer. Shortly after, there was contact with an adoption agency asking for the appointment of a ‘family finder’ for Ms D. The Council asked the agency to allocate a family finder for Ms D.
24. September: At the start of the month, the Council sent Ms D a letter summarising what was said during an earlier meeting. This explained the Council was joining the Regional Adoption Agency (RAA) along with several other local authorities. It said this may mean a wider choice of children to consider for adoption. It did not say when it would join it although it said the social worker would discuss her case with the head of the RAA who agreed to allocate a family finder to her. Once the Council was notified of who the finder is, it would notify Ms D.

2020:

25. January: The Council tried to locate Ms D’s papers for ALS.
26. February: The papers were sent to ALS, but ALS said this was only email correspondence between Ms D and the social worker. It needed the panel papers.

2021:

27. May: The Council received an email from ALS in response to its query about progress with Ms D’s case. ALS replied while it received copies of her papers from the Council, it had had no other input about the case. She was not allocated a social worker from the assessment team. The Council suggested a way forward might be to set up a meeting between Ms D and ALS to discuss her case. ALS said once Ms D told it she wished to proceed, it could prepare an allocation and plan for identifying a suitable child. It also said it had received no contact from Ms D.
28. July: In her stage 3 complaint, Ms D confirmed she had not realised the Council would cease to be an adoption agency in September 2019 when it wrote to her.
29. August: The Council discovered Ms D did not wish to use ALS and wanted to find an alternative one.
30. In response to her formal complaint the Council accepted the following for which it apologised:

• ALS accepted the decision of the panel to defer its decision on deregistering Ms D. This meant a decision about a family finder would not have been allocated until Ms D had gone back to the panel. It accepted there were gaps in its communication with her. It also accepted it did not return the case back to panel in a timely way;
• The process of discussing her case with ALS following the Council ending being an adoption agency from September 2019 was not followed through fully;
• Had a social worker been available to meet within the time frame set out by another local authority, Ms D might have met their social worker as part of its consideration of her as a possible match, along with another couple; and
• There were gaps in communication with Ms D from September 2019 and communication with her was limited.

31. In response to my enquiries, the Council explained:

• A social worker told Ms H certain medical information was missing off her file. This was incorrect as the information was safely stored with the medical advisor at the hospital. It denies this prevented her from being considered for placements;
• It also denied saying it would allocate her an experienced social worker from ALS and provide her with a complete copy of her file as claimed;
• It denied any delay transferring her case to another adoption agency;
• It sent Ms D a letter confirming it would cease to provide an adoption service;
• Information was gathered following the panel meeting and attempts made to bring the case back to the panel;
• It ceased to be an adoption agency in September 2019 and her case was discussed with a new adoption agency. It accepts there was some drift and delay by ALS moving this forward; and
• It could not confirm why the file and information requested was not provided to Ms D. It believes this is because of the failure to properly record what happened and the officer involved at the time leaving the Council. It accepts there was an outstanding request from Ms D to see information it had on her.

Analysis

32. I found fault on this complaint for the following reasons:
1. In December 2018, the panel decided it needed further information about Ms D in response to the Council’s request to remove her from its register of approved adopters. Although the Council obtained information from Ms D over the following two months, the case never went back before the panel. In its response to her complaint in May 2021, the Council accepted it, ‘did not return your case to the Adoption Panel in a timely matter so that your continued approval could be considered’.
2. There were various reasons why the case did not go back to the panel which included illness and Ms D’s unavailability for example. In June 2019, the Council decided not to proceed with the panel meeting because it wanted to discuss a way forward. There is no evidence showing the case went to the panel again.
3. Nor is there evidence of the Council trying to explore the reconciliation process to restore a positive working relationship with the Council as recommended by the panel.
4. I am satisfied the failure to bring information back to the panel, or look at the reconciliation process as recommended, caused Ms D an injustice. What it meant was no decision was reached on the request to deregister her. Without a decision, it is unlikely any child would be matched to her because it was unknown whether the request would be granted or not. This caused Ms D distress. She suffered from frustration, uncertainty, stress, and lost the opportunity to have a prompt decision made on the request. A prompt decision would have meant she knew she was, or was not, on the approved adopter’s register. It also meant ALS and any other adoption agency would also have known.
5. In September 2019, the Council wrote to Ms D saying it would organise for her to have a copy of her file within four weeks and to discuss this with her if she believed there were still key documents missing. There is no evidence this was done. I consider this caused Ms D an injustice as it caused distress in the form of frustration and inconvenience.
6. The letter also explained the Council was joining the RAA. I am not satisfied it clearly set out that the Council would no longer be an adoption agency, although the letter implied it. The letter also failed to clearly explain what its role would be and what the role of the RAA would now be and how this would affect Ms D. I am satisfied the letter’s failure caused Ms D an injustice. Its lack of clarity meant she was unclear about what was happening.
7. The Council accepted there were gaps in communication with Ms D and accepted communication with her was limited following September 2019. I consider the injustice this caused Ms D included frustration and inconvenience.
8. The Council also accepted there had been ‘drift’ with her case when it was transferred to ALS. I note the evidence shows ALS was not sent all relevant papers when the case was transferred to it. This caused her an injustice. The delay caused frustration, uncertainty, and some worry for Ms D.
9. I am satisfied Ms D received little support or contact from any social worker from June 2019. Again, this caused her an injustice. She was left feeling frustrated and has the uncertainty of not knowing whether matters might have taken a different path but for the fault.
10. The Council accepts a social worker wrongly told Ms D about information missing from her file. This caused upset, loss of confidence in the Council, and confusion.
11. I am also satisfied there was a failure to respond to her requests for copies of her files and her repeated attempts to get them. Again, this caused her frustration and anxiety as she believed the files contained incorrect information.
12. I cannot say the identified fault in the way the Council dealt with her case lost her the opportunity to be matched to a child. This is too speculative. She is left with the uncertainty, and possible lost opportunity, of what might have been. In reaching this conclusion, I also note the Council’s acknowledgement a match with another council might have progressed but for the failure of its own social worker meeting its timescale.
13. The Council failed to follow its own complaints procedure. Ms D initially sent her complaint in November 2019 and failed to receive a response. Although I have not seen a copy of it, Ms D later sent the Council a copy when it said it never received it. We asked the Council to deal with her complaint which it agreed to do in December 2020. After some chasing, the Council sent her its first stage response to her complaint towards the end of May. I am unable to say why the Council did not receive her initial complaint but, I am satisfied it failed to deal with her complaint promptly when it agreed to do so after our involvement. It took five months to respond to her. Under the first stage of its complaints procedure, a reply is sent within 10 working days or extended to 20 working days if complex.
14. I am satisfied the fault caused her an injustice. She suffered distress. She had the frustration and inconvenience of having to chase the Council about progress. It added to her growing lack of faith in the Council towards her.
33. I saw no evidence of the Council losing information as claimed.

Back to top

Agreed action

34. I considered our guidance on remedies. I also took account of the Council’s offer about its delay providing her with a copy of her file and offer to: apologise to her for the delay; reimburse the £10 fee she paid several years ago; send her an electronic copy of her file as soon as possible.
35. I also took account of the prolonged nature of the faults affecting Ms D but also her apparently lack of contact with the Council or ALS in 2020, for example, about progress.
36. The Council agreed to carry out the following action within 4 weeks of the final decision on this complaint:
1. Send Ms D a written apology for its failures to: gather all relevant information requested by the panel and present it to it promptly; send her a copy of her file; give her correct information about evidence missing from her file; clearly explain its role and that of the RAA; communicate properly with her; provide her with proper support and contact from a social worker; ensure there were no delays in the transfer of her case to ALS and it progressing it; deal with her formal complaint properly.
2. Pay £1,000 to Ms D for the injustice caused by the failure to deal with her properly following the panel’s decision to defer.
3. Pay £200 to Ms D for the injustice caused by the failure to deal with her formal complaint properly.
4. Pay her £250 for the time and trouble she has been put to pursuing this complaint.
5. Review why her case was not brought back to the panel promptly or at all to ensure the delays and failures are not repeated in future.
6. Take steps to ensure copies of files are sent within agreed timescales in future.
7. Remind relevant officers of the need to ensure clear information is given in correspondence to applicants about the respective roles and responsibilities of the Council and the RAA.
8. Look at why Ms D was without a social worker’s support for so long and act to ensure this is not repeated in future.
9. Look at why there were gaps in communication with her so this is not repeated on future cases.

Back to top

Final decision

37. I found fault on Ms D’s complaint against the Council. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman