Summary: The Council was at fault for its poor communication with Mr and Mrs X during the process of de-registering them as foster carers. It also failed to signpost them to a fostering support service and unnecessarily delayed in coming to its final decision on de-registration. However the Council was not at fault for not referring Mr and Mrs X’s appeal to the Independent Review Mechanism (IRM) as Mr X did not request this when given the opportunity. In recognition of the injustice caused by these faults, the Council has agreed to pay Mr and Mrs X £200 and said it will provide evidence of service improvements it has carried out.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to follow the correct procedures when it took steps to de-register him and his wife as foster carers.
2. He said this caused them to be unable to foster for several years and they lost the opportunity to have their appeal heard by an independent panel.
3. Mr X wants an independent panel to hear their challenge to the Council’s de-registration decision.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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 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)
6. 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)
7. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered the information provided by Mr X and the Council.
9. I considered the relevant law and guidance as set out below.
10. I considered our Guidance on Remedies
11. Mr X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on a draft decision before I made this final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

De-registering foster parents

12. If a fostering service decides that a foster parent is no longer suitable to foster, it must give them written notice of its proposal to terminate, or revise the terms of, their approval as foster parents.
13. It must do this by sending the foster parent a ‘qualifying determination’ explaining its reasons. This should tell the foster carers they can challenge the decision if they wish, provided they respond within 28 days in one of the following two ways:
• submit written representations to the fostering service challenging the decision; or
• apply to the Secretary of State for a review of the decision by an independent review panel, otherwise known as the Independent Review Mechanism (IRM).
14. If the foster parent does not choose either option before the deadline, the fostering service can make its final decision.
15. If the fostering service receives written representations within the 28 days, it must refer the case, including these written representations, to its fostering panel for consideration. These must be considered by the decision maker.
16. If the application is referred to the independent panel, the fostering service must submit its documentation to the IRM within ten working days and the IRM’s recommendations must be considered by the decision maker.
17. The decision maker is a senior member of staff identified by the fostering service as being suitably qualified to decide whether or not to approve a person as a foster carer.
18. If taking into account all the evidence, the decision maker agrees with the fostering service’s original decision to terminate the foster parent’s approval, it must inform the foster parent as soon as practicable of its decision, its reasons and the date from which the termination will begin. (The Fostering Services (England) Regulations 2011, Regulation 28, ‘Reviews and terminations of approval), (Assessment and approval of foster carers: Amendments to the Children Act 1989 Guidance and Regulations, vol.4, 2013)
19. When an allegation has been made against a foster carer, the Council will ensure the foster carer concerned is aware of the address and contact telephone number of the independent organisation or person which has been identified to provide them with support. (Croydon Children’s Services Procedures Manual, Allegations against foster carers, 3.3 Investigation and Action)

What happened

20. Mr X and his partner have been registered foster carers with the Council since 2015. They were registered carers at independent fostering agencies for several years prior to 2015.
21. After one of their foster placements through the Council broke down in 2020, the Council carried out a Standards of Care investigation during which it raised concerns regarding Mr and Mrs X’s suitability as foster carers.
22. The Ombudsman is not investigating Mr X’s concerns regarding this Standards of Care investigation as the events happened too long ago. We are looking at his latest complaint which is that the Council failed to refer them to the IRM when he requested it.
23. On 8 December 2020 the Council’s fostering panel met following the Standards of Care investigation and the panel recommended terminating Mr and Mrs X’s approval as foster carers.
24. It sent the qualifying determination to Mr and Mrs X on 23 December 2020 to inform them of this.
25. The letter said they had three options which were as follows:
• Option 1. Accept the Council’s decision and let it know within 28 days.
• Option 2. Provide a written statement opposing the Council’s proposed decision within 28 days.
• Option 3. Apply for the proposed decision to be reviewed by an independent review panel, otherwise known as the IRM. The Council attached a leaflet containing further information about this.
26. The Council said in its letter that if it did not hear from Mr and Mrs X within the 28 day period, then its original proposed decision – to de-register them as foster carers – would stand as its final decision.
27. Mr and Mrs X wrote to the Council within the 28 day timeframe and requested ‘option 2’, which was to issue a statement opposing the decision, which would then be considered by the decision maker. Mr and Mrs X enclosed their statement.
28. The Council missed Mr X’s response that he sent within the deadline. Therefore, a panel met on 20 January 2021 and the decision maker made the final decision to de-register them effective from that date. There is no evidence that the Council informed Mr and Mrs X of this decision.
29. The records show that the Council then held another panel meeting on 20 April 2021. This time the panel said there had been an error and it now saw that Mr and Mrs X had opposed the Council’s decision and requested option 2, before the deadline lapsed.
30. The panel said the new information provided by Mr and Mrs X, which it had now considered, did not address the Council’s concerns enough to change its original decision.
31. However before making a final recommendation, the decision maker said it would wait to receive confirmation on whether Mr and Mrs X were signposted to independent fostering support during the investigation process that they should have been, according to its own policy.
32. Mr X was not informed that this panel was taking place, nor of the outcome of this panel meeting.
33. The Council established six months later, in October 2021, that Mr and Mrs X had not been referred to the fostering support they should have been. However this did not give cause to change its decision.
34. The panel met later that month and the decision maker concluded that considering all the evidence, including Mr X’s written representations, its original decision to de-register Mr and Mrs X as foster carers would still stand.
35. Mr and Mrs X were again not informed that this panel was taking place, or of the outcome of this panel meeting.
36. Mr X complained to the Council in May 2022. This was a year and a half after the Council’s original proposed decision to terminate their approval as foster carers. Mr X said he had requested an IRM review of the Council’s decision at the time but he had not yet received a response.
37. It should be noted that the email evidence shows Mr X requested ‘option 2’, which was to issue a statement opposing the decision, rather than ‘option 3’ which was to have the IRM review the case.
38. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint to say it had no record of him making any representations before the deadline lapsed and therefore he had no avenues of appeal left. This complaint response did not mention the two panels which had met in 2021 after the Council’s original decision due to its error.
39. Mr X complained to the Council again saying he requested the independent panel review in time and wanted the IRM to hear his response. The Council provided a final complaint response in the following month. This response repeated what was said in the Council’s stage 1 response and signposted Mr X to the Ombudsman.

My findings

Decision making

40. The Council delayed in processing Mr X’s written challenge and did not consider it during its first decision. However ultimately the Council did consider his written representations before making its final decision to de-register them as foster carers.
41. The Council’s final decision was made in line with the procedures to de-register foster carers, as set out in the regulations and guidance. Therefore the Council was not at fault for its decision making in this case.

Communication and complaint handling

42. However, the Council failed to identify that Mr X submitted written representations within the given deadline. The Council then failed to inform him when it had identified its error and failed to tell him it had held two further panel meetings to review the decision.
43. The Council also failed to inform Mr and Mrs X of the outcome of any of the panels for six months, which was a significant delay.
44. When Mr X complained, the Council failed to properly investigate Mr X’s complaint, as it again failed to inform him that it had reconsidered his case on two further occasions.
45. The faults above put Mr and Mrs X to avoidable time and trouble and prolonged their uncertainty about whether the council followed correct procedures during the de-registration process.

Delay in April 2021 panel action

46. The April 2021 panel meeting requested Council officers establish whether Mr and Mrs X had been referred to fostering support.
47. The Council took six months to establish this information. These delays are fault which further contributed to the uncertainty and time and trouble Mr and Mrs X were put to.

Failure to signpost to fostering support

48. The Council failed to signpost Mr and Mrs X to appropriate independent support during this time. The Council was at fault. The process of being investigated and de-registered can unavoidably cause distress. This fault meant Mr and Mrs X missed out on having the option of support.

Referral to the IRM

49. Mr X did not request the option to have his case heard by the IRM. He requested option 2, which was to have his written representations considered by the fostering panel.
50. The Council was therefore not at fault for not referring Mr X’s case to the IRM.

Back to top

Agreed action

51. Within one month of the date of the final decision, the Council has agreed to:
• apologise to Mr and Mrs X for its poor communication and delay during the process of de-registering them as foster carers and for failing to signpost them to independent fostering support; and
• pay Mr and Mrs X £200 in recognition of the time and trouble, uncertainty and distress caused by the Council’s poor communication, flawed complaint handling, avoidable delay and failure to signpost to them to support.
52. Within three months of the date of the final decision, the Council has agreed to tell us what action it has put in place to ensure it:
• acts on written representations from foster parents;
• informs foster parents of the outcome of review panels; and
• follows its policy on signposting foster parents to relevant fostering support when they are the subject of investigations.
53. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

54. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault leading to injustice and recommended a financial remedy and a service improvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman