Summary: There was no fault in the Council’s decision to stop the adoption allowance Mr B received for his son. It looked at the financial information Mr B provided and properly considered the use of its powers. Its reason for stopping the allowance – that another authority was meeting Mr B’s son’s needs instead – was not obviously unreasonable.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr B, complains about the Council stopping its adoption allowance for his son, whom I refer to as C. Mr B says the Council agreed that it would always support C with an adoption allowance – because of his special needs – but then failed to keep to its agreement.
2. Mr B feels the decision to stop the allowance – which was because of his failure to declare income – was unfair. He says the other money he received for C was for C’s education, which Mr B had been providing at home. He also says there was no section on the annual review form which asked that he provide such information.
3. An independent panel reviewed Mr B’s complaint at stage 3 of the Children Act complaints procedure. Mr B says the panel recommended that C’s allowance be at least partly reinstated, but the Council refused.
4. Mr B says he has suffered a financial injustice from the Council’s decision to stop C’s allowance. He wants the allowance reinstated and backdated. He also wants an apology from the Council, and compensation to recognise his distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

7. I considered documents from Mr B and the Council.
8. I considered the Adoption Support Services Regulations 2005.
9. Mr B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Adoption Support Services Regulations 2005

10. The Regulations say financial support is payable to adoptive parents when it is necessary to ensure they can look after the child, or when the child needs more money for special care.
11. Adoptive parents must agree to tell the local authority immediately if there is a change in their financial circumstances (or the child’s). They must also agree to give the local authority an annual statement setting out these financial circumstances. If they fail to do any of this, the local authority can end payment of financial support, and seek to recover all or part of the amount already paid.
12. When deciding how much financial support to provide, the local authority must take account of any other money available to the adoptive parent.
13. Local authorities review financial support every year, or if any relevant change of circumstances comes to their notice.

What happened?

14. Mr B and his wife adopted C in 2008. Before this, the Council agreed a package of financial support to help them meet C’s needs.
15. In mid-2018, Mr B provided documents for the annual review of his allowance. The Council asked him to provide details of ‘income received though the child’. He said C received some disability benefits. He did not include anything else.
16. The Council agreed to continue Mr B’s adoption allowance, which, by that point, was well over £3,000 a month.
17. In April 2019 the Council received a call – seemingly from Mr B’s wife. She asked the Council to start paying the adoption allowance to Mr B rather than herself (as had previously been the case). The Council had reason to believe the call did not, in fact, come from Mr B’s wife, but instead came from a third party – arranged by Mr B. It suspended the allowance payments and started an investigation.
18. The Council held a meeting with the local authority where C lives. The authority said it had been providing support to C since 2011. Since 2015, this support had included ‘two to one’ care in C’s home for 15 hours every day, as well as some educational support. The authority delivered the support as direct payments to
    Mr B. The payments came to over £12,000 a month.
19. The Council decided to find out if C had any needs which his local authority was not meeting. The other authority agreed to complete an up-to-date needs assessment. It did this in September 2019.
20. The Council decided the care package from C’s local authority was fully meeting his needs, and therefore it was not necessary to pay an adoption allowance as well. It told Mr B that C had no specific adoption-related needs for which he was not already receiving support.
21. The Council also told Mr B that, if it had known about the support from C’s local authority, it would probably have reduced or stopped its adoption allowance in 2011. This meant, in the Council’s view, Mr B had potentially received an unnecessary allowance for around eight years. However, in recognition of his challenging financial circumstances, the Council chose not to seek recovery of any allowance it had already paid.
22. In early 2020 Mr B asked for a review of the Council’s decision to end the adoption allowance. The Council met with him and he explained why he needed the allowance. He said his wife had left the family and he was caring for his children on his own, which meant, because of C’s needs, he could not work. He said he was facing financial ruin.
23. The Council’s view remained that C’s local authority was meeting his needs, so an adoption allowance was still not necessary. It told Mr B that any allowance must be for C’s needs, not to supplement Mr B’s loss of income.
24. Mr B appealed this decision, and the Council wrote back to him in May 2020. It noted that some of Mr B’s bills seemed unnecessarily high. It agreed to make a one-off payment of £1,260 to meet C’s basic, non-disability-related needs while Mr B sorted out his monthly spending. It reminded him that it would not recover the adoption allowance he received between 2011 and 2019. It refused to re-start the allowance. It closed C’s adoption support case.
25. Mr B made a complaint about the Council’s decision, which the Council processed through the Children Act complaints procedure. Stage 3 of the procedure involved a review of the complaint by an independent panel. The panel recommended that, as C’s local authority was meeting his disability-related needs, the Council should reinstate the ‘core’ adoption allowance. It said this was for basic needs not met by C’s local authority.
26. The Council refused to reinstate any part of the adoption allowance. It said the ‘core’ allowance was for fostering, not adoption. It said authorities do not separate adoption allowances in the same way as fostering allowances.
27. Mr B remained dissatisfied and approached the Ombudsman.

My findings

28. Although the Council agreed to pay an adoption allowance before Mr B adopted C, all allowances are subject to annual review. They do not have to continue in the same pre-arranged way until the child reaches 18.
29. Mr B had a duty to give the Council details of his (and C’s) financial circumstances, and to tell the Council about any changes.
30. The Council’s annual review forms – dating back to 2018 at least – have a section for income received for the child. They ask for details of ‘child benefit’, ‘tax credits’ and ‘other’. There is no specific section for direct payments. But I would not expect the Council to list every single possible income source on the form. It appears that parents should include all forms of income.
31. Because of this, I do not agree that it was unreasonable to expect Mr B to include the large direct payment he received for C.
32. The Council’s view is that its adoption allowance was for C’s needs, and that C’s local authority was providing direct payments for the same needs at the same time. I have considered the Council’s records and, although I note that some of the other authority’s support is for education, I do not consider the Council at fault for reaching this view.
33. I recognise that Mr B is facing financial difficulties after his wife left the family home. However, it appears the Council fully considered all the information he provided before arriving at its decision that C no longer needed an allowance. It also properly considered the use of its discretionary powers (as shown by its agreement of a one-off payment in May 2020).
34. Although I accept that Mr B is unhappy, I have identified no fault in the Council’s decision-making, and its explanation for its decision is not obviously unreasonable. This means I cannot question the result.
35. I have also considered the Council’s refusal to agree to the review panel’s recommendation on Mr B’s complaint. We expect that, if a council intends to refuse a panel recommendation, it provides a good reason. The Council’s reason is consistent with its overall decision-making and I have found no fault with the refusal.

Back to top

Final decision

36. There was no fault in the Council’s decision to stop the adoption allowance Mr B received for C.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman