Summary: Mr X complained that the Council delayed completing stage one of the adopter application process which was then refused. He said staff were unprofessional and the process caused them distress and uncertainty. We find no fault with the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (the Council) delayed completing stage one of the adopter application process for almost two years, which was then refused. He said the social workers were unprofessional and that the process caused him and his partner distress and the delay caused them uncertainty. He also said the Council mishandled a subject access request (SAR) he made during this time.

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 consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome; or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants; or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.
  (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. When a council commissions or arranges for another organisation to provide services we treat actions taken by or on behalf of that organisation as actions taken on behalf of the council and in the exercise of the council’s functions.
5. 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have investigated events relating to stage one of the adopter application process, from August 2023 to June 2025.
7. I have not investigated part of the complaint that relates to the Council’s handling of a SAR made by Mr X under the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR). We normally expect someone to refer matters to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Statutory guidance on adoption (2013)

10. Council’s must have regard to the Department of Education’s 2013 statutory guidance on adoption when carrying out duties relating to the adoption of children and the recruitment and support of adopters in England. 
11. Section 3 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 places a duty on local authorities to maintain an adoption service within their area and sets out the minimum facilities that must be made available in the provision of the service. The local authority is not obliged to provide all the facilities itself but may make use of services provided by voluntary adoption agencies and adoption support agencies, or other suitable service providers who are permitted to provide the service in question. (Department for Education, Statutory Guidance on Adoption, 2013)
12. In this case, adoption application processes are managed on behalf of the Council by an external agency (the Agency).

Assessments of prospective adopters

13. Assessment of prospective adopters is a two-stage process. Stage one should take no more than two months unless the agency is satisfied there are good reasons for it to take longer. Where it is clear that stage one will take longer than two months, for example, because a criminal record check is delayed or the prospective adopter wants more time, an agency may delay making their pre-assessment decision. In this case agencies should detail the reasons for the extended timescale on the prospective adopter’s case record, along with supporting evidence. This information is important given that performance on the timeliness of the approval process will be measured.
14. Where an agency decides that a prospective adopter is not suitable to adopt during or at the end of stage one, it must inform the prospective adopter of the decision and provide them with a clear written explanation of the reasons why they will not be able to proceed to stage two. Prospective adopters who wish to complain about this decision may make a complaint using the agency’s local complaints procedure. They will also be able to raise general concerns about the process with the National Gateway for Adoption. The Independent Review Mechanism (which provides an appeal process for applications refused at stage two) is not available for decisions made during stage one. (Department for Education, Statutory Guidance on Adoption, 2013)

What happened

15. Mr X and his partner applied to be prospective adopters and stage one of the assessment process began in August 2023. The Agency, acting for the Council, made initial checks, such as requesting medical histories and DBS checks, in September and October 2023.
16. The social worker completing the initial checks mistakenly recorded one of their DBS checks as positive. Mr X said this caused initial delay and distress. However, the Agency corrected this, and the stage one report shows both DBS checks were clear.
17. The report states the medical information provided at first omitted significant details so the Agency could not complete the stage one assessment. During 2024 the Agency made several attempts to gain the required medical information. The stage one report records that the Agency kept Mr X and his partner informed regularly and that they took steps themselves to help obtain the medical files.
18. The Agency received complete medical information for both applicants by November 2024. The Agency sent this to the Medical Adviser immediately and then chased the medical report in January 2025.
19. The Agency arranged a meeting with Mr X and his partner in February 2025 to discuss the information gathered. Mr X says this meeting was distressing as it was very long and went into details about their medical histories, which the Agency had not told them would happen.
20. The Agency shared the stage one report with Mr X and his partner in April 2025. The report explained the application was refused and gave recommended steps to improve their chance of success should they apply to be adopters in the future. The Agency held a meeting in May 2025 with Mr X and his partner to discuss the report in more detail.
21. Mr X responded formally to the stage one report after the meeting and made a complaint to the Council. Mr X requested several amendments to the report which the Agency made, and a final version of the report was issued in June 2025.

Analysis

22. There was significant delay in the stage one process, but the report documents various issues that led to the delays, especially the difficulties gaining complete and accurate medical information. I am satisfied the delay in reaching the stage one decision was not due to fault by the Agency. The Agency documented its reasons its report in line with statutory guidance and kept Mr X and his partner informed throughout. I therefore find no fault for this delay.
23. Mr X complained the social worker completing the assessment was unprofessional and untruthful. He said they requested medical records without consent and made diagnoses when unqualified. Other events, like not being told the purpose of the February meeting and sharing the stage one report and decision just before the weekend, also caused Mr X and his partner distress.
24. The Council’s complaint response recognised both the meeting and timing of the report may have been difficult for Mr X and his partner. The Council apologised for any distress caused and said it would remind staff to carefully consider the content and timing of communications.
25. Mr X and his partner signed consent forms authorising the Agency to request information from various sources for the assessment. The Council said it has updated the forms to state medical information will be reviewed by social workers.
26. The stage one report detailed the evidence gathered and advice from the Medical Assessor, alongside other sources, to make a decision. It is understandable this process can sometimes be distressing for applicants, however it is a necessary part of the stage one assessment in line with the statutory guidance.
27. I have found no evidence the social worker acted with fault in the way they assessed the information available. I have considered the steps the Agency took and the information it took account of when deciding to not progress the application to stage two. There is no fault in how the Agency made the decision on behalf of the Council, and so I cannot question whether that decision was right or wrong.

Back to top

Decision

28. I find no fault with the actions of the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman