Summary: The Ombudsman will not and cannot investigate X’s complaint about events surrounding children X fostered. The Court made the crucial decisions, the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider data inaccuracy complaints and the remaining injustice from an allegation of poor communication is not significant enough to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call X, complains about the decision to, and the way, foster children left their care and the communication with them afterwards. X also says the Council holds inaccurate information about them. X says the events affected their wellbeing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify the cost of our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
4. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information X provided with their complaint and the Council’s responses to X which it provided. I considered X’s comments on a draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. In May 2019, X started to foster three siblings the Council placed with them. In August 2019, the Council agreed to arrange respite care for the three siblings in mid November. X says this was to meet the Council’s duty to provide annual respite as set out in the foster contract.
7. Just before that was due to happen, there was an incident involving one child. The children moved to respite care early. But not to the arranged one placement together, but to three separate placements. X says this was against professional advice. The following week a Court decided the children should remain at their respective respite carers until a final Court hearing due some weeks later.
8. The children never returned to X. They remained in alternative care but not together.
9. X says the Council:
• should not have split the siblings up;
• holds inaccurate information about X in connection with these events; and
• poorly communicated to them. X says they were left in the dark about what would happen with the children and not kept fully informed
10. X complained to the Council. It replied in January 2020. It explained a Court had approved the plan to separate the siblings. It apologised for a lack of transparency in any decision making with X. But it explained once the children had left X’s care it was limited as to what it could tell X.

Analysis

11. We cannot investigate the decision to separate the children. This is because the Court approved this arrangement.
12. From the information we have, it was a relatively short period of time between the children leaving X’s care and the Council informing X that they would not be coming back. Clearly X was anxious during that time and it may have felt longer than it was, but given the length of time X had cared for the children was relatively short, seven months, there is not enough injustice caused to X to justify an investigation into this. We are unlikely to achieve more than the Council’s apology.
13. Parliament set up the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to consider Data Protection Act complaints. The Council holding inaccurate information can be one such complaint. It is reasonable to expect X to approach the ICO about this issue.

Back to top

Final decision

14. The Ombudsman will not and cannot investigate this complaint. This is because the Court decided the children’s arrangements, the ICO is better placed to consider any data inaccuracy complaints. There is insignificant outstanding injustice caused to X by the Council’s poor communication allegations to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman