Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council has refused to defer his annual review by the Fostering Panel until after a pending court case. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault on the Council’s part. We will not investigate his complaint that the Council intends to deregister him as a foster carer because it is open to him to challenge this decision, if it is made.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Mr B, complains that the Council has refused to defer his annual review by the Fostering Panel until after a pending court case. He also complains that the Council is at fault in deciding to deregister him as a foster carer.

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:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered what Mr B has said in support of his complaint and in response to my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr B and his wife are Council foster carers. Mr B says the Council wishes to deregister them because of an incident which took place in 2018. He says the incident is the subject of a court case.
5. Mr B asked the Council to defer the annual review by the Fostering Panel until after the court case had concluded. The Council refused, and it is against this decision that he complains. He argues that the refusal to agree to his request is unreasonable, and places him at a disadvantage. He contends that the Council wants to deregister him as a foster carer because it will be implicated in the court case.
6. The Ombudsman will not investigate this matter. It is for the Council to decide whether to go ahead with the review. The fact that Mr B disagrees with the Council’s decision does not mean that it amounts to fault. It is not for the Ombudsman to substitute an alternative view.
7. Mr B also complains that the Council intends to deregister him. He believes this is unreasonable and contends that it is fault on the Council’s part which caused the issue in the first place.
8. Mr B may make these arguments against deregistration to the Panel. It is not for the Ombudsman to anticipate the outcome. If the Panel makes an adverse decision, Mr B may challenge it by way a review by the Independent Review Mechanism, which is better placed that the Ombudsman to consider the matter, or through the statutory Children’s Services complaint procedure. The Ombudsman will not intervene.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault on the Council’s part, and it will be open to Mr B to challenge deregistration.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman