Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the conduct of a social worker, whom Mr X alleges misled a fostering panel. This is because Mr X is able to raise his concerns about professional conduct with Social Work England. Additionally, Mr and Mrs X had the right to a review of the panel’s decision to de-register them as foster carers, which is the main injustice caused by the alleged fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to here as Mr X, complains about the conduct of a social worker acting on behalf of the Council. Mr X says the fostering panel, the agency decision maker (ADM) and the independent reviewing officer (IRO) were presented with misleading or incomplete information about Mr X and his wife, Mrs X, resulting in an erroneous decision being taken.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. Mr X offered comments on a draft version of this decision. I have considered his comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In May 2021, a fostering panel supported a recommendation to de-register Mr and Mrs X as foster carers. Mr and Mrs X declined to attend the panel or submit their representations in writing on the grounds of Mrs X’s ill health.
7. The ADM wrote to Mr and Mrs X to confirm agreement with the panel’s recommendation. The ADM noted previous assertions that Mrs X was too unwell to participate in the panel process, but stated that information shared with the panel indicated both Mr and Mrs X were jointly engaged with the Council’s complaints process. The ADM was therefore unclear why Mr and Mrs X could not also have submitted their representations to the panel in writing.
8. Mr X says this was inaccurate: he had been pursuing a complaint on the couple’s behalf, but Mrs X had not engaged with the complaints process. Mr X says that the Council misled the panel about this, which was of consequence because it was a factor in the ADM’s decision. Further, Mr X says that he understood the two processes were separate and a complaint should not have a bearing on the panel’s decision.
9. Mr X complained to the Council about this. In its final response, the Council said the complaint had been registered in both Mr and Mrs X’s names, but acknowledged Mr X was the party progressing this. The Council stated the social worker presenting to the panel may not have been aware of this. It upheld this aspect of Mr X’s complaint. The Council did not agree there had been an intent to mislead the panel and said the details of the complaint were not disclosed. The Council did not agree the panel’s decision was influenced by the ongoing complaint.
10. The Council has acknowledged that Mrs X’s involvement with the complaints process may have been overstated. The ADM’s decision letter, however, outlines the breadth of other evidence considered when agreeing with the panel’s recommendation, which included court reports, social worker reports, an IRO report and various emails and letters exchanged over a lengthy period. The scope of other evidence considered gives weight to the Council’s view that an ongoing complaint was not an influencing factor in the panel’s decision.
11. Mr and Mrs X had the right to refer their case to the Independent Review Mechanism (IRM). The IRM is an independent panel that would review the case again and may make recommendations to the Council. Mr X’s concerns that the fostering regulations were not correctly followed, or that misleading information was presented to the panel, could be considered as part of such an appeal. The Ombudsman cannot determine whether an individual is suitable to be a foster carer.
12. In comments offered on a draft version of this decision, Mr X emphasised his complaint specifically concerned the professional conduct of the social worker who had engaged with Mr and Mrs X, rather than the panel’s decision. The Ombudsman’s role is to investigate the Council’s actions as a corporate body, rather than to investigate an individual. If Mr X has concerns about the professionalism or integrity of an individual social worker, he is able to report his concerns to their professional body, Social Work England.

Back to top

Final decision

We will not investigate this complaint. This is because Mr X is able to raise his concerns about professional conduct with Social Work England. Additionally, Mr and Mrs X had the right to a review of the panel’s decision to de-register them as foster carers, which is the main injustice caused by the alleged fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman