Summary: Mrs X complained the Council ignored her requests not to contact her ex-partner when she applied to be a foster carer. She said the Council’s actions potentially put her and her family at risk. The Council was not at fault. There were delays in the Council’s stage two response to her complaint which caused avoidable upset and frustration. The Council should apologise to remedy any injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council ignored her requests not to contact her ex-partner when she applied to be a foster carer. She said the Council’s actions potentially put her and her family at risk.
2. She said the Council could have spoken to a respite foster carer who would have confirmed her history; or got information from other sources such as social services. Mrs X was also unhappy with the Council’s delay in dealing with her complaint.
3. Mrs X said the Council’s actions left her no choice but to withdraw from the fostering assessment process. She said the Council’s actions caused her and her family emotional upset.

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’s 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)
6. Under the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), we will share this decision with Ofsted.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I read the Council’s records and the information it had gathered as part of Mrs X’s fostering assessment. I also considered her complaint and its response.
8. I referred to the Council’s procedures and relevant legislation.
9. Mrs X and the Council both had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Fostering approval procedure

10. Under the Children Act 1989 Councils must follow a statutory procedure for assessing applications from people wanting to become foster carers. The Fostering Services (England) Regulations 2011 set out how prospective foster carers should be assessed through a two-stage assessment process.
11. The Regulations specify the information the Council needs to gather for the assessment. This includes information such as:
• Details about the applicant’s family and former partners.
• The applicant’s personality, religious views and capacity to care for children from different religious backgrounds (including from former partners).
• The racial origin, cultural and linguistic background of the applicant; and present employment, standard of living and leisure interests.
• The applicant’s skills, competence and potential capacity to care for children placed with them.
• References from at least two personal referees.
12. Once the Council completes both stages of the assessment, it prepares a written report with recommendations about the applicant’s suitability to foster. That report is considered by a fostering panel. It then makes recommendations on the applicant’s suitability to foster. The Council then makes a final decision on whether the applicant is accepted as a foster carer.

The Council’s complaints procedure

13. The Council has a two stage complaints procedure. At stage one, the Council says it will acknowledge complaints within three working days. The service being complained about is responsible for investigating and responding to the complaint. The timescale for responding at stage one is 20 working days. This can be extended by 10 days if needed.
14. If a complainant is unhappy with the Council’s response, they can ask the Council to escalate it to stage two. At stage two a complaints officer investigates and reviews the complaint. The timescales for responding to the complaint is 30 working days, but the Council can extend that to 40 days if needed.

What happened

15. In May 2018 Mrs X applied to be a foster carer and the Council started the assessment process.
16. Mrs X told the Council that one of her previous partners, Mr G, had been violent. She said that resulted in her having to move county with her then, three young children, and change their identities. She said she had got an injunction at the time to prevent Mr G contacting them, but the paperwork for that was lost. The case records show Mrs X stated she did not want Mr G to know her whereabouts.
17. Mrs X gave the Council details of her friend, Ms E and a respite foster carer, Ms F, so it could corroborate what Mrs X had told it about her relationship with Mr G. She told the Council she had also been supported by social services.
18. On 20 August 2018, the Council requested a search on its own social services records. However, because Mrs X’s involvement was historical, it needed to search its paper archive.
19. On 3 September 2018, the Council contacted three social service areas where Mrs X had previously lived.
20. On 6 September 2018, the Council emailed and left a voicemail for Ms F. The case records show Ms F did not provide any information for the assessment.
21. On 11 September 2018, the Council spoke to Ms E. However, she did not know Mrs X when she was in a relationship with Mr G, so was only able to confirm what Mrs X had told them.
22. The assessing social worker discussed the case with their manager. The case records show they were struggling to verify information about Mrs X’s past.
23. On 14 September 2018, the Council emailed Mrs X and asked if it could contact her niece to speak to her about Mrs X’s relationship with Mr G.
24. Mrs X responded and said her niece was not part of her life when she was in the relationship with Mr G. She said she did not want to put anyone at risk from him.
25. At the start of October 2018, the Council met with Mrs X’s adult daughter. The case records show it discussed Mr G with her; within that conversation she told the Council that Mr G had no home address and there was no way to reach him. Mrs X said her daughter did not say that. She said the Council told her daughter that Mr G was of no fixed abode.
26. The following week, Mrs X emailed the Council. She said she had spoken to her daughter who had told her, the Council had tried to contact Mr G. The Council responded and said that it had explained to Mrs X’s daughter that “we always try to contact significant ex-partners and we have not been able to get in touch with [Mr G]”.
27. Mrs X spoke to the Council. In these conversations the Council said it had not contacted Mr G. It explained it was seeing if there was any way it could contact Mr G, but it did not have any contact details and therefore was unable to.
28. The Council’s case records show that at this time, the Council had reviewed the information it had collected and decided that it needed to discuss this with Mrs X before it progressed further with the assessment.
29. Mrs X complained to the Council on 19 October 2018. She said the Council had told both her and her daughter that it had attempted to contact Mr G. However, when she spoke to the Council, it told her it had not attempted to contact Mr G. In that complaint she withdrew from the fostering assessment process.
30. The Council responded to Mrs X two weeks later. It apologised for the delay and tried to arrange a time to speak to Mrs X to discuss the complaint.
31. On 29 January 2019 the Council provided its stage one response. It said that at stage one of the fostering assessment process, it was trying to get information from someone or something to corroborate Mrs X’s experiences of when she was in a relationship with Mr G. That included speaking to Mrs X’s daughter who had corroborated Mrs X’s memories of her relationship with Mr G.
32. The Council said that it had asked her daughter about the whereabouts of Mr G but also asked about how Mrs X had protected the family. The Council said that it had not contacted Mr G, or attempted to speak to his family or friends. The Council did not uphold the complaint as there was no attempt at contact with Mr G. However, it said it could have done more to reassure Mrs X about its actions in the assessment process.
33. The Council explained that Mrs X withdrew from the fostering assessment process before it had pulled together all the information it had. It explained that the next stage would have included the Council reviewing the information it had gathered and making decisions about what was needed next.
34. Mrs X asked the Council to escalate her complaint to stage two. She said that the Council had not accepted or apologised for attempting to contact Mr G despite it telling her it had. She also said it did not make enough effort to verify her relationship history with Ms F. She said she had spoken to Ms F, who said the Council had only left a voicemail message.
35. The Council received the request to escalate Mrs X’s complaint to stage two on 1 February 2019. It said it would respond by 19 March 2019. It then sent two emails asking for an extension because of the investigating officer’s workload and competing deadlines. The Council sent Mrs X its stage two response on 9 May 2019.
36. The Council’s stage two response did not uphold her complaint. Mrs X remained unhappy and complained to the Ombudsman.

My findings

37. Mrs X said the Council told her, and her daughter it had attempted to contact Mr X as part of the fostering assessment process.
38. As I was not there, I cannot comment on what the Council did or did not say to Mrs X or her daughter in conversation. However, I have reviewed the full case files as part of my investigation. These record the actions of the assessing social worker, including telephone calls they made, and voice-mail messages left; notes form assessment meetings and actions that needed completing. There is no evidence that the Council had any contact details for Mr G or made any efforts to contact him. The Council was not at fault.
39. Mrs X also complained that the Council did not make enough effort to corroborate her experiences of her relationship with Mr G through other sources. From reviewing the case records the Council made efforts to get information from a variety of sources including referees; medical information and social services records. It also contacted Ms F, who Mrs X had suggested could verify experiences. The Council was not at fault in how it undertook the assessment.
40. The Council received Mrs X’s complaint on 22 October 2018. It should have provided a response no later than 3 December 2018. It did not provide a response until 28 January 2019. That was eight weeks late.
41. The stage one response was delayed because the assessing social worker had a long-term absence. I am aware from the Council’s letter to Mrs X it made her aware of this. Given the nature of the complaint it was necessary for the investigating officer to discuss the complaint with the assessing social worker before responding. Therefore, although there were delays, the Council was not at fault.
42. At stage two, the Council aims to complete investigations within 30 – 40 working days. The Council took 67 working days. The Council said that was because of workload and competing deadlines. That delay was fault which caused Mrs X avoidable upset and frustration.

Back to top

Agreed Action

43. Within one month of the draft decision the Council has agreed to:
• Apologise to Mrs X for its delay in dealing with her complaint at stage two.

Back to top

Final decision

44. There was no fault in the Council’s actions in how it undertook a fostering assessment of Miss X. However, there was a delay in its response to her stage two complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise therefore I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman