Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to give clear information about how much they would be paid for the placement. This is because the potential fault did not cause any significant injustice. In addition, an investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about payments for a foster placement. He says the Council failed to give clear information about how much they would be paid for the placement and says the Council took seven months to issue the first payment slip. He also complains the Council stopped the payments without notice and advised they had been overpaid by nearly £14,000.

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 not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X and his wife, Mrs X, are approved foster carers. The Council placed a baby and its mother and father with Mr X and Mrs X. They arrived at the placement on 4 January 2022.
6. On 11 January 2022, the Council emailed Mrs X to confirm the payment for the placement (both parents and baby) would be around £1500 per week. The Council emailed Mrs X again on 21 January to confirm the exact payment for the placement would be £1574.48 per week. Therefore, the Council did provide Mr X and Mrs X with clear information about how much they would be paid for the foster placement.
7. The father left the placement on 21 April 2022. The Council accepted it should have stopped the payment for the father from 20 April 2022. The Council confirmed it failed to do this and continued paying Mr X and Mrs X for the baby, mother and father until September 2022. The payment history showed that from May 2022, the Council paid Mr X and Mrs X just over £1600 per week for the placement.
8. Given Mr X and Mrs X would have been aware the father had left the placement, they had enough information to suggest they were being overpaid as their payments did not decrease (in fact they increased). This is especially because the Council told them exactly how much they would receive each week for the baby, mother, and father.
9. Mr X said the Council took seven months to provide their payment slip. While this could potentially amount to fault, I do not consider this would have caused any significant injustice to Mr X and Mrs X. This is because, even without the payment slip, Mr X and Mrs X had enough information to suggest they were being overpaid.
10. While the Council has accepted fault for not reducing the payment once the father left the placement, this does not mean the overpayment does not need to be repaid by Mr X and Mrs X. Therefore, the Council is entitled to reclaim the overpayment.
11. Further, the Council has accepted it stopped the payments without notice. The Council said it did this to reclaim the overpayment. The Council has now reinstated the payments. Therefore, I am satisfied the Council has provided an appropriate remedy.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the potential fault did not cause any significant injustice. In addition, an investigation would not lead to a different outcome. This is because the Council is entitled to reclaim the overpayments made.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman