Summary: the Council followed its procedures by holding a disruption meeting and referring Mr and Mrs F’s case to the Fostering Panel following the breakdown of G’s placement. The Independent Review Mechanism upheld the Council’s decision to restrict Mr and Mrs F to short-term, holiday and respite placements. There was no fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mrs and Mrs F, who are foster carers, complain the Council has treated them unfairly following the breakdown in September 2017 of the placement of G, a young person, they fostered. In particular, they complain:
1. the Council changed their approval to ‘holiday and respite’ placements pending a disruption meeting following the breakdown of G’s placement. They did not return to being ‘full’ foster carers for 49 weeks.
2. they only received a single placement in 49 weeks, whereas other foster carers they know had more children than they were approved to foster on occasion.
2. Mr and Mrs F say they have missed out on fostering payments as a result.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have considered the Council’s handling of the matter, and in particular whether there were any delays. I have not considered the Council’s decision to restrict placements to holiday and respite care because Mr and Mrs F appealed the Council’s decision to the Independent Review Mechanism (IRM). The IRM upheld the Council’s decision.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have considered:
• information provided by Mr and Mrs F;
• information provided by the Council; and
• the Council’s Fostering Policy (consulted online).
7. I invited Mr and Mrs F and the Council to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. Mr and Mrs F have been foster carers for the Council since 2014.
9. Problems arose in the summer of 2017. Shortly before a family holiday, a child Mr and Mrs F were fostering threatened to kill herself. Mr and Mrs F asked the Council to pay for a separate hotel room for her. The Council declined, but only once Mr and Mrs F had arrived at their hotel.
10. Then, in September 2017, the child asked to move to different foster carers. The Council arranged respite. The child did not return to Mr and Mrs F. Mr and Mrs F say the Council blamed them for the breakdown of the girl’s placement.
11. The Council decided Mr and Mrs F could only take respite or holiday placements until a disruption meeting was held. The Council said this could take up to two months. A meeting was scheduled for 26 October 2017, six weeks after the end of the girl’s placement.
12. Mrs F wrote to the Council on 9 October 2017 to complain. She said they had not had any respite or holiday placements, and the disruption meeting was still two weeks away. Mrs F said they wanted to resign as Council foster carers.
13. The Council met with Mrs F and responded to her complaint on 24 October 2017. The Council acknowledged responsibility for some of the delay because Mr F was not originally invited to the disruption meeting. The Council also apologised for the lack of social worker supervision during difficult times.
14. The disruption meeting took place on 8 November 2017. The Council decided to undertake an assessment to identify Mr and Mrs F’s support needs, and to refer the case to the Fostering Panel for a decision about their registration as foster carers. In the meantime, the Council would only consider Mr and Mrs F for respite or holiday placements.
15. The Council says Mr and Mrs F had children placed with them for a total of five nights in November 2017, January and February 2018.
16. A meeting of the Fostering Panel was planned for 11 January 2018, but Mr and Mrs F were unable to attend. The meeting was rescheduled, and the Fostering Panel considered the case on 21 February 2018. The Panel agreed with the Council’s plan to assess Mr and Mrs F’s support needs and decided to change their registration to short-term, respite and holiday placements.
17. The Council says a short-term placement was made on 26 February 2018 and the young person remained with Mr and Mrs F until May 2018.
18. The Council confirmed Mr and Mrs F’s new registration category – short term, respite and holiday placements – on 13 March 2018. Mr and Mrs F appealed the Council’s decision to the Independent Review Mechanism (IRM) straightaway. It appears they were particularly unhappy with the Council’s proposal to reassess them.
19. The Independent Review Mechanism is an independent body which considers a foster carer’s suitability to foster. A panel of up to seven people with personal or professional experience of foster care reviews the Council’s decision. The IRM considers all the evidence anew. It questions both the Council and the foster carers and takes its own independent legal advice if necessary. The IRM makes a fresh decision about the foster carer’s suitability to foster and makes a recommendation to the Council. The Council must consider, but is not bound by, the IRM recommendation.
20. The IRM considered Mr and Mrs F’s appeal at a hearing in July 2018. The IRM Panel recorded its disappointment that the Council’s representative was not familiar with historic aspects of the case. The IRM Panel was critical of the Council’s matching process for newly approved foster carers and noted a lack of support for Mr and Mrs F over an extended period.
21. However, the IRM Panel agreed with the Council’s proposal to assess Mr and Mrs F’s support needs, and to change their registration to short term, holiday and respite foster placements.
22. The Council accepted the IRM’s recommendations.

The Council’s response to Mr and Mrs F’s complaint

23. The Council responded to Mr and Mrs F’s complaint on 24 October 2017, 1 February and 9 May 2018. The Council refuted Mr and Mrs F’s complaints that lack of support led to the breakdown of G’s placement; offered to transfer them to another team; refused their request to pay a retainer; and stood by the Council’s decision to restrict placements to holiday and respite care.
24. Mr and Mrs F remained dissatisfied. They were upset by the loss of the child they believed they would be caring for long-term, and the lack of placements had a significant impact on their finances. They complained the Council had treated them unfairly.
25. The Head of Service, who sent the Council’s final response in May 2018, met with Mr and Mrs F in September and again in October 2018. He sent a final letter to Mr and Mrs F in November 2018 in which he apologised for the way the Council’s actions had made them feel and hoped for improved future relationships. He also offered a payment of four weeks’ fostering fees (£693), which is equivalent to the Council’s notice period to end a fostering placement, to recognise the sudden end of G’s placement without notice.
26. Mr and Mrs F remained dissatisfied and complained to the Ombudsman.

Consideration

27. Mr and Mrs F complain the Council has treated them unfairly following the breakdown of G’s placement in September 2017. Their primary concern, as I understand it, is the impact of the Council’s actions on their fostering income. They believe they have missed out on a considerable amount of money as a result of the way the Council responded.
28. Fostering payments are made up of two elements: an allowance to cover the costs of caring for the child, and a professional fee to recognise the foster carer’s time and experience. The Council only pays fostering payments to foster carers in Mr and Mrs F’s skills band when they have children placed with them. Foster carers are not entitled to have children placed with them and are not, therefore, guaranteed any income or fees.
29. Mr and Mrs F believe the Council should pay them almost £17,000 for the 49 weeks they say they were without foster children following G’s departure. This is the professional fee for the two placements they were approved to take at the time.
30. The Council’s Financial Support to Foster Carers policy says the Council will continue to pay fees to foster carers who are suspended and under investigation following allegations until the matter is resolved or the foster carer’s registration is terminated.
31. Although Mr and Mrs F say the Council blamed them for the breakdown of G’s placement, they were not suspended and did not face formal investigation. They were not, therefore, eligible for payment under the Council’s policy.
32. Instead, the Council decided it would only place children with them for holiday and respite placements until it held a disruption meeting and the Fostering Panel had reviewed their registration. This is a decision the Council is entitled to take and there are no grounds for the Ombudsman to question it. My job is to check the Council followed its policy and took action without delay.
33. The Council’s fostering policy says the disruption of a planned or permanent placement would normally trigger a disruption meeting to explore the issues and assist planning. Such a meeting is usually held within 8 weeks of a placement ending. There is no assumption that placement breakdown is a foster carer’s fault. Following a disruption meeting, a report should be prepared for the Fostering Panel.
34. The Council held a disruption meeting six weeks after G’s placement ended. In response to Mr and Mrs F’s complaint, the Council accepted it was responsible for some delay as it forgot to invite Mr F to the meeting. At the end of their complaint, the Council offered a payment equivalent to one month’s fostering fees for G in recognition of the sudden end of G’s placement. I am satisfied this is an appropriate remedy for any delay.
35. Following the disruption meeting, the Council wanted to assess Mr and Mrs F’s support needs and referred the case to the Fostering Panel for a decision on their future registration. Again, the Council was following its policy and this is a decision it is entitled to take. There are no grounds for the Ombudsman to question it.
36. The next Fostering Panel was due on 11 January 2018, but the Council says Mr and Mrs F were unable to attend. The case was heard at the next Fostering Panel on 21 February 2018. There was no delay by the Council.
37. The Fostering Panel decided to change Mr and Mrs F’s registration. Mr and Mrs F appealed the decision to the IRM.
38. The IRM reviewed the Council’s decision and, although the Panel was critical of the Council, agreed with the Council’s proposal to assess Mr and Mrs F’s support needs and recommended they should be approved for short-term, holiday and respite placements. The Council accepted the IRM recommendations.
39. The Ombudsman does not decide whether Mr and Mrs F should be registered for short or long term placements. This is the Council’s job. Foster carers have a right of appeal against Council decisions to the IRM. The IRM agreed with the Council’s decision. There are, therefore, no grounds for the Ombudsman to criticise the Council.
40. Mr and Mrs F have not had the number of placements as holiday, respite and short-term foster carers they believe they would have had if they had continued as ‘full’ foster careers.
41. Mr and Mrs F said they only had one child placed with them between 2 September 2017 and 14 August 2018. They said they did not receive payment as they had previously been overpaid.
42. The Council says they had a number of children placed with them during this time:
• a group of three siblings placed for two nights in November 2017;
• a young person placed for one night in January 2018;
• a young person placed for two nights in February 2018; and
• a young person placed with them from February to May 2018.
43. Mrs F confirmed these details are correct.
44. Foster carers do not have a right to foster placements, and the placements they are asked to take will depend on the needs of the Council. The Council explained that it usually looks to foster carers’ families to provide holiday and respite care, so the need for ‘unconnected’ foster carers to provide respite is relatively rare.
45. The significant drop in Mr and Mrs F’s fostering income is not the result of fault by the Council.

Conclusion

46. I accept Mr and Mrs F did not receive as many placements during the time between the breakdown of G’s placement and their return to ‘full’ fostering as they would have done if the Council had not decided to restrict placements to holiday and respite care, but this is not the result of fault by the Council. The Council followed its procedures after the breakdown of G’s placement. There was a short delay in holding a disruption meeting when the Council did not invite Mr F, but the Council has already provided a suitable remedy by paying fostering fees for one month. Mr and Mrs F challenged the Council’s decision to change their registration, but the IRM upheld the Council’s decision. There are no grounds for the Ombudsman to criticise the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

47. I have ended my investigation. The Council followed its procedures after the breakdown of G’s placement. It appears Mr and Mrs F have not had as many placements as they might otherwise have had, but this is not the result of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman