Summary: The complainant provided a foster placement for D between December 2019 and September 2021. They complain about the Council’s handling of several incidents during that time and its subsequent decision to remove D from their care in 2021. The LGSCO has discontinued the investigation into the complaint because the matters complained about happened more than 12 months ago and there is no good reason to exercise our discretion.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I will refer to as Person Y throughout this statement, says the Council failed to properly investigate multiple safeguarding incidents which they reported about their foster child, D.
2. Person Y says the Council then investigated one incident which they blamed Person Y for. As a result, Person Y says they have lost income because they can no longer work in a school or provide foster care. Person Y also says the Council’s failures have caused significant distress.
3. Person Y says the Council’s communication about the matter has been poor and it has often failed to respond to Person Y’s contact.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I discussed the complaint with Person Y and considered the complaints correspondence. I also made enquiries of the Council and considered the case records for the period during which Person Y cared for D.
7. Person Y 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

8. At the time of the matters complained about Person Y was a foster carer employed by a private agency which provides an administrative function for the Council.
9. In late 2019 D became subject to an interim care order and the Council was his corporate parent. He was placed with Person Y in December 2019.
10. Throughout 2020, Person Y raised several concerns about bruising and injuries sustained by D at school. One of the most significant injuries happened in March 2020 when D hurt his neck on play equipment at school. Person Y took D to hospital and a social worker visited D the following day and reviewed the hospital’s notes.
11. Court proceedings concluded in October 2020, and D became subject to a full care order which said that he needed a long-term foster placement. The Council decided that Person Y could not effectively meet D’s emotional needs and said he should move to a more suitable placement when one becomes available.
12. D remained with Person Y throughout 2020 and most of 2021. The records show the Council experienced some challenges with finding another placement.
13. The relationship between Person Y and D’s school deteriorated. Person Y had concerns about the school’s ability to keep D safe from harm and injury. Meanwhile the school expressed concerns about Person Y’s ability to meet D’s emotional and behavioural needs.
14. The Council continued to try and source a new placement for D.
15. In early September 2021, D went to school and was observed by a member of staff to have small bruises on his upper arms. The staff member was concerned about the appearance and location of the bruises. D’s social worker visited him at school. Person Y said the bruises were a result of D falling over.
16. Due to concerns about the nature of the bruising, the Council made an immediate decision to move D to an alternative placement and undertook a safeguarding investigation. The Council says a medical examination concluded that D’s bruises were non-accidental.
17. D did not return to the care of Person Y, who later resigned from their position as a foster carer.
18. Person Y complained to the Council in July 2022 and the Council responded in August. Person Y submitted a complaint at the second stage of the corporate complaints process and the Council provided a final response in September 2022 which signposted Person Y to the LGSCO.
19. Person Y approached the LGSCO in February 2023.
20. The LGSCO has decided not investigate this complaint further because:
• Person Y could have complained to the Council in 2020 about its inability to safeguard D when he sustained injuries at school. In line with our jurisdiction, Person Y should then have approached the LGSCO within one year of having cause to complain.
• Person Y could have complained to the Council in late 2021 or early 2022 about the decision to remove D from their care. The records show Person Y complained in July 2022; ten months after D’s move. Person Y then came to the LGSCO five months after receiving the Council’s final response. I have considered Person Y’s comments but, based on the information I have seen, there is no good reason to exercise discretion.

Back to top

Final decision

21. I have discontinued our investigation of this complaint because it was not made to the LGSCO within twelve months of the matters complained about, and there is no good reason to exercise our discretion.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman