Summary: Ms B complained how the Council handled concerns she raised about its handling of her foster care placement. We find the Council was at fault as it significantly delayed responding to Ms B’s complaint. It also failed to provide the stage two officers with all the relevant files, and it wrongly interpreted some of her concerns. This means her complaint has not been considered properly. The Council has agreed our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.

The complaint

1. Ms B complained how the Council investigated concerns she raised about its handling of her foster care placement. She says the Council failed to investigate her original complaints, it told her to attend panels that did not exist, and it re-wrote her complaint without giving her an opportunity for comment. She also says the Council significantly delayed dealing with her complaint and the stage two investigators relied on unethical records when investigating her complaint.
2. Ms B says the Council’s actions have caused serious loss, harm and distress to her and her family.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 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)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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 considered information from Ms B. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered information it sent in response.
8. Ms B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Children’s statutory complaints procedure

9. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. The accompanying statutory guidance, Getting the Best from Complaints, explains councils’ responsibilities in more detail.
10. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
11. If a complainant is not happy with a council’s stage one response, they can ask that it is considered at stage two.
12. At stage two of the procedure, councils appoint an investigator and an independent person who is responsible for overseeing the investigation. Councils have up to 13 weeks to complete stage two of the process from the date of request.
13. If a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of the stage two investigation, they can ask for a stage three review by an independent panel. The Council must hold the panel within 30 days of the date of request, and then issue a final response within 20 days of the panel hearing.
14. If a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it unless we consider the investigation was flawed. However, we may look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation.

What happened

15. This chronology sets out key events in this case and does not detail everything that happened.
16. Ms B was approved as a foster carer for the Council in May 2017.
17. The Council placed a child (Child C) with Ms B in June 2017.
18. The Council sent Ms B its annual review paperwork in June 2018. It said Ms B had a difficult first year of fostering and a challenging placement. It said it had concerns about Ms B’s ability to work positively with professionals.
19. The placement with Child C ended in September.
20. Ms B resigned from foster caring in October. The Council accepted her resignation and sent her a de-registration report on 23 October. The report also provided an update on the placement from May 2018 onwards.
21. Ms B emailed the Council on 25 October. She raised concerns about untruthful information in the annual review report and the de-registration report. She said it failed to provide adequate support, especially in relation to her disability, and its attitude changed towards her when she reported professionals had injured Child C. She also said it failed to grant permission for Child C to have the day off for a religious holiday.
22. The Council treated Ms B’s email as a complaint. It sent Ms B its stage one response by email on 5 December. It said it put in place support quickly when it realised the placement was challenging. It also said it properly investigated the allegation that professionals had harmed Child C. It said it was unaware she needed support for her disability at the beginning of the placement. When it became aware, it asked for assessments so it could understand her disability better. Finally, it said there was a misunderstanding on whether Child C could have the day off for a religious holiday. It apologised for this.
23. Ms B was dissatisfied with the Council’s response and asked for a stage two investigation on 20 December.
24. The Council appointed an independent officer (IO) on 25 March 2019 and an independent person (IP) on 27 March 2019.
25. The Council produced a draft statement of complaint on 1 June. Ms B provided her comments and amendments to the draft statement of complaint on 14 July.
26. The Council emailed Ms B on 22 July and said her complaint about professionals harming Child C was not for the statutory complaints procedure. It also said her complaints about the deregistration report was for the deregistration panel. It said she could attend the panel on 15 August, 19 September, or 17 October to present her concerns.
27. Ms B responded and asked for further information about the deregistration panel. The Council responded and said there was no such thing as a deregistration panel. It apologised for its error and the confusion. It said it had a fostering panel where she could share her comments about the deregistration report.
28. Ms B emailed the Council on 12 August and said she would attend the panel on 17 October. She asked for more information about the panel. The Council did not respond to Ms B’s request for this information.
29. The Council emailed Ms B on 11 September and said it was suspending the stage two investigation until she attended the fostering panel to avoid confusion. It sent her a letter and said she could attend the fostering panel on either 16 January 2020 or 20 February 2020.
30. Ms B said she disagreed with the Council’s approach. The Council decided to re-open the investigation. It reappointed the IO and the IP. The IO sent Ms B a draft statement of complaint on 11 November.
31. Ms B responded and said she disagreed with the IO’s statement of her complaint. The Council decided to discontinue the stage two investigation because it could not reach an agreement with Ms B.
32. Ms B emailed the Council on 10 December and said she had spoken to the Ombudsman and other legal bodies. She said she wanted it to complete the stage two investigation. She also said she wanted it to investigate her statement of complaint from 14 July. Finally, she said she would attend the fostering panel on 16 January 2020. She asked for information on the time, venue, and agenda.
33. The Council responded and said it would only proceed if she agreed to the IO’s statement of her complaint. Ms B agreed under protest on 20 December.
34. Ms B emailed the Council on 6 January 2020 and said she had still not received any information for the fostering panel on 16 January.
35. The Council sent a letter to Ms B in the post on 10 January. It apologised for not getting back to her sooner regarding the fostering panel on 16 January. It invited her to attend the panel on 20 February.
36. Ms B emailed the Council on 5 February. She asked it to arrange a date for her to attend the fostering panel after it had completed its investigation into her complaint.
37. The IO completed her stage two report on 11 March 2020. She upheld or partially upheld 15 out of 25 of Ms B’s complaints. She found the Council did not share supervision records with Ms B and the social worker did not visit Child C enough. She also found procedures and processes were not properly explained to Ms B and staff demonstrated a lack of cultural and religious sensitivity.
38. The Council sent its stage two response to Ms B on 28 October. It apologised, confirmed it had put in place service improvements, and offered £250 for its failures and the delay in responding to her complaint.
39. Ms B asked for a stage three investigation on 15 November. She said the Council had relied on inaccurate reports and it had re-written her complaint and desired outcomes.
40. The stage three panel hearing took place on 14 June 2021.
41. The panel produced its findings on 16 June. It changed the findings for two of the complaints from not upheld to upheld. It said the Council had information about Child C’s behaviour before placing him with Ms B. It said it was inappropriate for the Council to place Child C in Ms B’s care as she was a single and inexperienced foster carer.
42. The Council sent its response to Ms B on 19 August. It said it would increase its offer to £350.
43. Ms B remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response and referred her complaint to the Ombudsman.
44. During my investigation, Ms B raised concerns the IO had relied on inaccurate records and had not considered all the information. She provided me with information, such as her foster carer logs, which she said the Council had failed to consider.
45. I sent this information to the Council and asked it to comment. The Council sent the information to the IO. The IO reviewed the information and confirmed she had not seen any of Ms B’s foster carer logs, as well as majority of the emails between Ms B and the fostering team. She said she would have changed her findings from not upheld to upheld for at least two of the complaints if she had seen the information.

Back to top

Analysis

46. We cannot investigate late complaints unless there are good reasons to do so. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. Ms B’s complaints stem from June 2017, but she did not initially come to us until August 2019. I have exercised discretion to look at Ms B’s complaints from the outset because of the delays she experienced.
47. The Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate something under the statutory children’s complaint procedure, unless we consider it was flawed. In this case, I am very concerned with the IO’s comment the Council did not provide her with significant evidence during her investigation. This means Ms B’s complaint has not been investigated properly, and the stage two investigation report is flawed and cannot be relied on. It would be inappropriate for the Ombudsman to re-investigate this matter, as we would be effectively conducting a fresh stage two investigation, which is the Council’s role. That is different to us re-investigating one or two complaints that we consider to be flawed. The Council needs to conduct a new stage two investigation and appoint a different IO and IP. It should ensure it provides them with all the files. Ms B can return to the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied with the Council’s reinvestigation of her complaint.
48. The Council’s failure to properly investigate Ms B’s complaint has caused her a significant injustice. She has been put to the time and trouble of going through the statutory complaints procedure, as well as referring her complaint to the Ombudsman. Ms B has a right for her complaints to be investigated properly and fairly, and the Council’s failure to do so has caused significant upset and frustration.
49. The Council also delayed dealing with Ms B’s complaint at each stage of the process. The delay at stage one was relatively minor, but the delays at stage two and stage three were significant. Councils have up to 13 weeks to complete the stage three process. Even if you exclude the time it took for the Council and Ms B to agree a statement of the complaint, it then took a further 10 months to issue its findings. The Council failed to keep Ms B updated and explain the delay. Ms B asked for a stage three review in November 2020, but the Council did not issue its findings until August 2021. These significant delays have caused Ms B frustration and uncertainty.
50. Ms B says the Council’s statement of her complaint does not reflect what she complained about. She says it re-wrote her complaint without letting her comment, and it invited her to attend panels which did not exist.
51. The Council has discretion on what complaints it investigates. However, some of Ms B’s complaints have been wrongly interpreted or are factually inaccurate. This is fault, which has caused Ms B further frustration and upset.
52. With regards to the fostering panel, the Council says matters relating to the annual review/deregistration report are governed by the Foster Carers Regulations 2011. It says challenging the reports must be made to the fostering panel. The panel can amend the reports.
53. I appreciate there is a separate process for Ms B’s concerns about the deregistration report and annual review, but the Council should have guided Ms B through the process better. Ms B emailed the Council on 12 August 2019 and said she would attend the panel on 17 October 2019. She asked for further information, which the Council failed to provide. Ms B also agreed to attend the panel on 16 January 2020, but the Council let her know at the last minute it was cancelling this. Ms B asked the Council to attend a panel after it had finished investigating her complaints, but there is no evidence the Council has arranged this. This means Ms B’s concerns about deregistration report and annual review has still not been investigated.
54. Ms B also has concerns how the Council handled safeguarding matters regarding Child C. The Council says such allegations are impartially overseen via the Local Authority Designated Officer. I understand there is a separate process for such allegations, but the Council has failed to properly investigate Ms B’s concerns about how these allegations were managed. The Council says it was satisfied it had dealt with the allegations properly. However, Ms B says she has further information about the incidents which contradict information the Council has referred to. The Council’s refusal to look at this matter further is fault. This leaves Ms B with uncertainty that serious safeguarding matters have been ignored.

Back to top

Agreed action

55. To address the injustice caused by fault, by 23 November 2022 the Council has agreed to:

• Apologise to Ms B.
• Pay Ms B £600 for her time and trouble, frustration, upset and uncertainty.
• Appoint a fresh IO and IP and start a new stage two investigation into the complaints raised by Ms B. The Council should ensure all files are sent to the IO and IP. The investigation should be completed in line with statutory timescales. It should progress the complaint to stage three following this if Ms B wishes.
• Write to Ms B and confirm how it will deal with her complaints that are not covered under the statutory complaints procedure.

56. By 21 December 2022 the Council will:

• Issue written reminders to relevant staff to ensure they are aware of the timescales under the statutory complaints procedure.
• Issue written reminders to relevant staff to ensure they are aware all relevant files must be sent to the IO and IP when they are conducting a stage two investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

57. There was fault by the Council, which caused Ms B an injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendations and so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman