Summary: Ms X and Mr Y complain about the process the Council followed when it investigated allegations made against them as foster carers from December 2017 onwards. The Ombudsman found fault in the Council’s decision to close a complaint without following the correct process. This caused confusion and frustration to Ms X and Mr Y when, a few months later, the Council realised its mistake and reopened the case. That decision was not fault. As the Council has already apologised to Ms X and Mr Y no further remedy is necessary.

The complaint

1. Ms X and Mr Y complain about the process the Council followed when it investigated allegations made against them as foster carers from December 2017 onwards. They say the Council has admitted some mistakes, but they have not been able to resume their foster caring role for more than 12 months. Ms X and Mr Y say this has had a major impact on their lives and livelihood, including a loss of income and emotional distress

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I spoke with Ms X about the complaint and read the documents Ms X and Mr Y sent the Ombudsman. I wrote to the Council to make enquiries and reviewed the information it sent in response.
7. I am satisfied I should exercise discretion to investigate the parts of this complaint which go back future than 12 months. My enquiries demonstrate there was a clear chain of events dating back to December 2017 and Ms X and Mr Y have been writing to the Council since March 2018.
8. I have seen the local policy on ‘Allegations Against Persons who work with Children (including Carers and Volunteers)’, which the Lancashire Safeguarding Children Board publishes. The ‘Management of Allegations’ procedures form part of this.
9. I shared my draft decision with Ms X and the Council and I invited them to comment on it.
10. 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

What I found

11. Ms X and Mr Y are partners who live together and in 2017 were foster carers registered through an independent fostering agency. This means they were in a private arrangement with that agency, which held their approval as foster carers and took on placements arranged with the Council. This is different to foster carers directly employed by a local authority.
12. Around the end of 2017, Ms X and Mr Y had three children in their care. They were siblings. In December 2017, the school of one of the children raised concerns about an alleged incident at home the child had spoken about. A multi-agency strategy meeting took place, chaired by a social work manager. Those present agreed enquiries should start under Section 47 of the Children Act 1989.
13. Section 47 requires local authorities to make enquiries where they suspect a child to be suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm. This is so they can decide whether to take any action to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child.
14. A home visit by a social worker took place the following day and their observations fed into another professionals’ meeting two days after that. Those present agreed to close the Section 47 enquiries and offer support to Ms X and Mr Y with ‘therapeutic parenting approaches’. Ms X and Mr Y say they believed this was the end of the matter and their fostering agency agreed with the result. The record of the meeting shows the chair agreed to update the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) and the Independent Reviewing Officer (IRO). The social worker was to write up notes and close the Section 47 element.
15. Every local authority must have a LADO. They oversee investigations about allegations made against adults working with children in their area which involve harm or potential harm to a child. They give advice, ensure the proper recording and robust investigation of allegations, and monitor and record outcomes. Meanwhile, every child in care has a social worker appointed as their IDO. Their job is to independently review the child’s care plan, consider the views of the child and others involved in their life, and challenge the local authority where necessary about its actions and decisions.
16. The Council says in February 2018 the IRO for one of the foster children noticed the Section 47 had not been written up. The IRO asked for this to be done.
17. In March 2018, the case notes show the body tasked with providing the parental support to Ms X and Mr Y reported they had been “unable to adopt” its recommended techniques and so it could not work with them any longer. Also, around this time, a case review took place between the IRO and their line manager. The case review concluded the decision making at the second meeting in December had been compromised because the school was not there. It had sent apologies, but the meeting had gone ahead. Also, the IRO believed the complaint should have been investigated under the Council’s formal ‘Management of Allegations’ procedures and involved the LADO sooner.
18. The IRO shared their concerns with the social worker’s team manager with a request to now involve the LADO. Another social worker visited the family home in March. As a result of the visit they reported further concerns about things allegedly said by the children and Ms X. The social worker put in a request for a multi-agency strategy meeting the following day and it took place on 16 March.
19. The minutes of the multi-agency strategy meeting show those present discussed the December 2017 incident again, and developments since that point the professionals deemed to be of concern. There were two issues for those present to consider – whether there had been emotional abuse and whether Ms X and Mr Y’s general conduct was acceptable. Ms X and Mr Y believe reference was made in the meeting about Mr Y having a previous criminal conviction. They say this was unfair and there was no merit to mentioning it.
20. Those present at the meeting voted by a clear majority for finding the allegation of ‘emotional abuse’ substantiated, and unanimously to uphold the allegation about Ms X and Mr Y’s conduct. The outcome of the meeting was shared with their fostering agency the following day and the Council chose to remove the three foster children from their care.
21. The Council says what happened after this point was between Ms X and Mr Y and their fostering agency. Ms X told the Ombudsman their case went to the fostering panel, but it refused to continue their registration as foster carers because there were outstanding complaints.
22. The Council says as far as it is aware Ms X and Mr Y did not use the appeals process, known as the Independent Review Mechanism, to try to overturn the fostering panel’s decision. It cannot place children with them while they are not registered.
23. Ms X and Mr Y complained about the Council’s decision to reopen in March 2018 the complaint they believed had been resolved in December 2017. The Council says it was wrong to close the complaint in December 2017, as staff did not follow proper procedures, and it has apologised to Ms X and Mr Y for the effect of that.

Back to top

Analysis

24. I have to be clear multi-agency decisions are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. While we can investigate the Council’s contribution to meetings to see they have acted properly and given accurate information, where members of different organisations take the final decision, we cannot question it.
25. Nor is the Ombudsman an appeals body. It is not our role to consider all the facts of a matter, including evidence from both sides, and then make a fresh decision which replaces ones taken previously. As long as the correct process has been followed, we cannot interfere with a decision which involves the exercise of an officer’s professional judgement and substitute our views for theirs. That applies even if Ms X and Mr Y strongly disagree with the decision in question.
26. Ms X and Mr Y’s complaint letter focuses specifically on the actions of the Council between December 2017 and March 2018, and so that is what I have investigated.
27. There was certainly fault in the failure to deal properly with the allegations made in December 2017 and to follow the Management of Allegations procedures. Given the later actions of the Council, I am satisfied this failing caused a significant injustice to Ms X and Mr Y in the form of uncertainty and frustration. It should have been avoided. For its part, the Council has accepted it was at fault and ‘sincerely apologised’ to Ms X and Mr Y for it. It also says it has shared learning with the small group of staff who chair strategy meetings to avoid a repeat in future. I think this is a suitable remedy in the circumstances and will not recommend anything further.
28. The Council reopened its investigation of the complaint in March 2018. In the circumstances I do not agree this decision was fault. Although it would likely be against the principles of natural justice to reopen an investigation on exactly the same facts, that did not happen here. A defect was identified in the original process – the school not being present when its allegation was being debated – and new and relevant information was also considered.
29. I have seen the minutes of the March 2018 strategy meeting. The submissions made by the Council’s officers broadly match the case notes and other records I have seen. This does not give rise to any belief on my part the Council’s submissions were fault.
30. There is a reference in the minutes to “a number of concerns regarding two previous incidents and information from police regarding previous convictions.” The wording of the minutes leads me to believe this was then clarified by the social worker present, who disclosed information about an allegation involving another child in 2015 which was investigated by the police. The minutes state clearly the police took no further action and the fostering agency was aware. I have no reason to believe this information from the social worker was wrong, and so there are no grounds for me to find fault here either.
31. Once the Council completed its investigation in March 2018 it handed over its findings to Ms X and Mr Y’s fostering agency. Events after this date were in the hands of the independent fostering agency rather than the Council and could also have been appealed. Nothing in Ms X and Mr Y’s letter of complaint refers to those later events anyway.

Back to top

Final decision

32. There is no evidence of fault by the Council in this case.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman