Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s alleged failure to properly investigate Mrs X’s complaint about her adoptive children’s former foster carers. This is because we would be unlikely to provide a different outcome for Mrs X.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly investigate complaints she made about her adoptive children’s former foster carers. She said the Council has caused her and her family distress and upset with its actions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with 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))

3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X complained the Council about the conduct of the foster carers who had previously cared for her adoptive children.
7. The Council investigated the complaint at stages 1 and 2 of its statutory complaints process. The Council either upheld or partly upheld the majority of Mrs X’s complaint points and put forward recommendations to address them, including a payment of £1000 for each child. The Council provided clear, well thought out reasons for the complaints it did not uphold.
8. Mrs X remained unhappy with the Council’s actions and questioned the Council’s impartiality during the investigation. She was also unhappy the Council would not share details regarding the foster carers. The Council made an early referral to us because of this and its concerns regarding sharing personal information about the foster carers.
9. Mrs X wants us to find the Council at fault for failing to uphold all of her complaint points and refusing to share details regarding the foster carers. We cannot criticise the merits of a decision the Council has correctly made. The evidence shows the Council considered Mrs X’s complaint and admitted fault for most of Mrs X’s complaint points. The Council has provided reasons for the few complaint points it did not uphold and for why it has redacted parts of the report to protect the foster carers’ privacy. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s investigation. Additionally, even if we were to investigate the complaint, we would be unlikely to make a different finding to the Council. It is open to Mrs X to pursue her complaint regarding the Council’s decision not to share the foster carers’ details as this relates to data sharing and is a matter for the information commissioner’s office.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because further investigation would be unlikely to provide her with a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman