Summary: There was no fault in how the Council considered Mr and Mrs X’s complaint about the actions of Childrens Social Care while they were foster carers. This matter was considered by the Council under the three-stage Children Act 1989 complaints procedure, and although Mr and Mrs X remain dissatisfied, we have seen nothing in their comments which substantively undermines the conclusions drawn by either the stage 2 independent investigator or the stage 3 review panel. Because there appears to be no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. Any fault in delays to the Council responding between stage one and stage two have already been remedied before our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X complained about the way the Council investigated concerns it had, relating to a child they were providing foster care for. They said the safeguarding investigation was;
• unfair and biased;
• had factual errors and misrepresentations;
• excluded them from making timely and adequate representations to counter the allegations.
2. They said the Council investigated their complaint, and this investigation was also biased. They said despite the stage three panel accepting the safeguarding investigation was unfair and biased, the Council have refused to overturn or re-evaluate the outcome.
3. Mr and Mrs X said the impact of this investigation and the consequence have been significant. They have been deregistered as foster carers and have incurred unnecessary expense in challenging decisions made by the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) because of the Council’s reports.

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 consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

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

5. I spoke to Mr X and considered the information he sent to me, including the response Mr and Mrs X prepared about their concerns relating to the stage two investigating officer’s report.
6. I considered the stage two investigation reports and the stage three panel report from the Children Act 1989 complaints procedure, in relation to Mr X and Mrs X’s complaint.
7. I also considered the Council’s response to the stage three panel report.
8. Mr and Mrs X 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 Act 1989 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. At this stage 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.
12. 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.
13. 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

14. The following chronology will provide a summary of the key events relevant to this complaint. It will not include every detail of what happened.
15. In 2019, the Council placed a child (G) in the foster care of Mr and Mrs X. In 2020, the Council removed G after it said it identified concerns about the fostering arrangement.
16. Following an investigation into those concerns, the Council referred Mr and Mrs X to the fostering panel. The fostering panel recommended Mr and Mrs X be deregistered as foster carers and this was agreed by the Council’s agency decision maker (ADM). The Council then made a referral to the DBS.
17. Mr and Mrs X initially raised their concerns about the process with the Council’s Customer Relations department from mid-August 2021 onwards, and then made a complaint.
18. In March 2022, the Council replied and confirmed it had done so within the Children Act 1989 complaints procedure. The Council apologised for the delay in responding to their complaint. It offered Mr and Mrs X £150, to recognise the distress it had caused them by the delayed response to their complaint.
19. In April, Mr and Mrs X asked for the Council to investigate their complaint at stage two of the procedure and in July the stage two investigation started.
20. In June, the Council appointed an independent officer to carry out the Investigation. It also appointed an independent person to oversee the investigation.
21. I have considered the documents from Mr and Mrs X’s complaint, and it appears the report produced by the independent investigator at stage two of the complaints procedure, demonstrates a proper consideration of the complaint, with reference to the review of documents provided by Mr and Mrs X, case records and minutes of meetings.
22. The investigation team also interviewed several people who were involved in the complaint, including Mr and Mrs X. The stage two investigator upheld elements of the complaint, but Mr and Mrs X remained unhappy with the outcome. They said it fell short of what they expected of an independent investigation.
23. Mr and Mrs X, then asked the stage three review panel to consider their disagreement with the stage two independent investigator’s findings. They provided a response setting out where they disagreed with the findings, highlighting, what they saw as flaws in the report, including what they described as evidence of bias by the independent investigator.
24. I have read this response alongside the stage two report and stage three review panel findings. I note the stage three panel considered Mr and Mrs X’s response, who were also involved in the panel discussion. I also note the panel overturned some of the findings the stage two investigator made.
25. According to the stage three panel report, it said they agreed they did not see evidence Mr and Mrs X had been given timely opportunities to provide their version of events, to the investigation completed by Children’s Social Care. Because of this, the panel said the resulting decisions may have therefore been biased and unfair. With this in mind, the stage three panel were not able to determine whether the outcome was flawed.

My findings

26. Although Mr and Mrs X highlight numerous instances, they say are evidence of flaws and bias in the stage two report, I have seen nothing which substantively undermines the overall conclusions drawn by the investigator, which do not appear either unreasonable or unevidenced.
27. Similarly, I have read the response Mr and Mrs X provided to the stage three panel and reviewed the report the stage three panel completed. I have not seen anything which the stage three panel has not properly considered.
28. Mr and Mrs X believe, because the stage three panel said they could not rule out bias in the Children’s Social Care investigation, they say the section 47 investigation was flawed. Mr and Mrs X say this would affect the decision to substantiate an allegation of fabricating illness.
29. I do not agree. In the absence of the stage three panel making a finding on whether the outcome of the investigation was flawed, the Council can still rely on the stage two findings. The stage two investigation did not uphold this aspect of Mr and Mrs X’s complaint. And as I have said, these findings appear to be properly considered and evidence based.
30. Notwithstanding, the available evidence shows the panel also considered the stage two investigator’s report. They did this alongside Mr and Mrs X’s response to the matters relating to information passed to the fostering panel and the DBS by Children’s Social Care.
31. In those instances, the stage two investigator did not uphold the complaint about the fostering panel’s decision-making. Nor did it uphold the complaint the DBS referral was flawed. In respect of those matters, the stage three panel had an opportunity to consider whether those decisions were flawed, and they made no finding in both instances.
32. I have also considered the information Mr and Mrs X provided, which they say is evidence the stage two investigators report was flawed and biased. This includes additional material and representations sent in response to my draft decision. I am not satisfied there is anything which substantively undermines the overall conclusions.
33. When a council has investigated a complaint under the Children Act 1989 complaints process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it. We may consider whether a council has properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigator and review panel, and any remedy the Council offers.
34. I am satisfied the independent investigator conducted a thorough and fair investigation of Mr and Mrs X’s complaint, and the independent review panel properly considered their representations. I do not intend to investigate further.
35. In the Council’s final responses, they told Mr and Mrs X they accepted the panel’s findings and accepted there had been a delay in responding to their stage one complaint. They subsequently made an offer to pay Mr and Mrs X a financial remedy of £100, which was over and above an earlier payment it said it made of £150. Collectively, that is an appropriate remedy for any injustice the Council’s actions caused Mr and Mrs X here, so I do not intend to comment on this matter further.

Back to top

Final decision

36. There was no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman