Summary: Ms M complains the Council owes her approximately £65,000 in fostering fees for the care she provided her nephews. The Council arranged for Ms M to care for her nephews under regulations which allow a relative to become a temporary foster carer. The Council did not, however, complete the necessary assessments. An independent investigator was critical of the Council’s failure to take control of the situation, and to respond to Ms M’s requests for help with transport for the boys for many months. We do not uphold Ms M’s complaint the Council owes her £65,000 in fostering fees, but we have recommended a symbolic payment for the delays and the frustration caused.

The complaint

1. Ms M complains the Council owes her approximately £65,000 in fostering fees for the care she provided her nephews. She says the Council promised her enhanced fostering fees because of the challenges of caring for the boys.
2. Ms M complains the Council owes her a considerable amount of money in addition to fostering fees for transport she arranged for the boys.

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 injustice we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. Once 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)
5. 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

6. I have considered information provided by Ms M and the Council. I invited Ms M and the Council to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. Ms M’s nephews came to live with her in February 2021 when circumstances meant they were no longer able to live with their parents. I have not included the details here to ensure the family’s anonymity.
8. Ms M says when the boys first came to live with her the Council promised she would receive enhanced fostering fees. However, she complains the Council said it has no record of this agreement. Ms M has taken the matter of missing records up with the Information Commissioner’s Office.
9. Ms M complained to the Council and to her local councillor in 2021.
10. Unhappy with the Council’s response, she complained to the Ombudsman in December 2022.
11. We asked the Council to consider her compliant under the Children Act complaints process. This is a formal procedure, set out in law, which councils must follow to investigate certain types of complaint. It involves:
• a written response from the Council (Stage 1);
• the appointment of an independent investigator to prepare a report (Stage 2); and, if the person making the complaint requests
• an independent panel to consider their representations (Stage 3).
12. The Council appointed an independent investigator who produced a detailed report. She upheld Ms M’s complaints. The Council accepted the independent investigator’s findings and recommendations and apologised for the mistakes it had made.
13. Ms M was unhappy with the Council’s response. She declined the Council’s offer of an independent review panel (stage 3) and complained again to us.

Consideration

14. When a council has investigated a complaint under the Children Act complaints process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it. We may consider whether the council has properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigator and any remedy the Council offers.
15. The independent investigator found the Council had arranged for Ms M to care for her nephews under regulations which allow a relative to become a temporary foster carer until the Council has completed the necessary assessments. The Council did not, however, complete the assessments. The independent investigator was critical of the Council’s failure to take control of what became in effect an ‘unlawful’ foster placement.
16. The independent investigator also found the Council failed to respond to Ms M’s requests for help with transport for the boys for many months. When the Council finally considered her request, it agreed to provide support.
17. While the independent investigator did not find the Council had promised Ms M enhanced fostering fees, she recognised Ms M’s frustration and recommended the Council consider redress for the impact of its mistakes on her.
18. The Council apologised, but did not offer any compensation. The Council said it had paid fostering allowance (maintenance) for both boys, and believed this covered any expenses Ms M incurred, including transport.
19. I am satisfied the independent investigator carried out a thorough and fair investigation. I agree with her findings and recommendations. I understand the Council does too.
20. There are two issues for me to consider:
• whether the Council owes Ms M any fostering fees; and
• whether the Council owes Ms M for transport.

Fostering fees

21. Foster carers are entitled to support and services from the Council, including fostering allowances and fees.
22. Fostering allowance is paid to all foster carers to cover the costs incurred in providing for the child. The Government sets the minimum weekly allowance depending on where the foster carer lives and the age of the child.
23. Fostering fees may be paid in addition to fostering allowance as remuneration for the foster carer. A council may offer different levels of remuneration to reflect the foster carer’s skills, experience or training.
24. Temporary foster carers who have been approved pending a full assessment are entitled to the same support as fully approved foster carers and should receive the same financial payments.
25. The Council pays fostering allowance (maintenance) to all foster carers. Only foster carers who have completed the ‘skills to foster’ training and been approved by the fostering panel are eligible for fostering fees (remuneration). The fee depends on their level of expertise and can range from £250 to £475 per child per week.
26. Regulations say the Council must complete a full assessment of a temporary foster carer within 16 weeks, or exceptionally within 24 weeks. If the Council does not complete the assessment in time, the placement becomes “unlawful”. Government guidance says the Council should end the placement and move the child. Councils may continue to support the placement if they judge it is in the child’s best interests, but it is no longer a foster placement.

What happened

27. The Council paid fostering allowance (maintenance) for Ms M’s nephews until they reached 18. The Council did not make the payments straight away, but has backdated the payments to the date the children went to live with Ms M.
28. The Council made the payments even though it did not complete an assessment and Ms M was not approved as a foster carer. After 24 weeks, the children were no longer in a foster placement.

Was there fault?

29. Yes. The independent investigator found the Council failed to take control. There was delay, drift and indecision by the Council. These are serious faults.
30. The independent investigator noted that after many months of delay by the Council, and numerous assessments, Ms M became reluctant to engage with further assessments. The independent investigator criticised the Council for failing to clearly explain the options to Ms M in a way that would have enabled her to make informed decisions.
31. Where we find fault, we consider the impact on the complainant. We refer to this as the injustice. We may recommend a remedy for injustice that is the result of fault by the Council.

Did the fault cause Ms M injustice?

32. Yes.
33. The Council’s handling of the assessment was poor. The independent investigator found there was delay, drift and indecision by the Council and recommended the Council offer redress. The Council declined. I have recommended a symbolic payment to acknowledge the frustration the Council’s faults cause. My recommendations are at the end of this statement.
34. If Ms M had undertaken training and been approved as a foster carer, she may have been entitled to fostering fees.
35. Ms M was not a trained or approved foster carer and was not, therefore, entitled to fostering fees.
36. I cannot say that Ms M would have been approved as a foster carer if the Council had offered the training and completed the assessments. That is a decision only a fostering panel can make. I do not have the authority or the expertise.
37. And while I note the independent investigator’s criticism of the Council’s failure to clearly explain the options to Ms M in a way that would have enabled her to make informed decisions, I cannot ignore the fact Ms M withdrew from the assessment.
38. After 24 weeks, the children’s placement with Ms M was not a foster placement.
39. Taking all of this information into account, I do not find the Council owes Mrs M £65,000 in fostering fees.

Transport

40. When they came to live with Ms M, the boys needed transport to attend college and apprenticeships. Their transport arrangements were not straightforward. I understand the boys were unable to use public transport. Again, I have not included details to ensure the family’s anonymity. When the Council finally considered their transport needs, it undertook ‘risk assessments’.
41. The Council believes the fostering allowance was sufficient to meet the children’s transport needs. The Council paid at least £230 per child per week.
42. The Council told me it expects foster carers to spend about 5% of the allowance on transport. That amounts to £11.50 per child per week.
43. Ms M says she spent considerably more.
44. Ms M requested financial help with transport costs in March 2021. In November 2021, the Council decided to undertake a risk assessment. The risk assessment took four months to complete, and the Council agreed to provide transport for the younger sibling in March 2022. The older sibling was no longer a child.
45. The independent investigator documented a catalogue of errors by the Council, and significant drift and delay, when considering Ms M’s request.
46. The Council should have made a decision in March 2021, not March 2022.
47. If it had, it is likely the Council would have agreed to provide some transport.
48. I am in no doubt the Council’s failure to respond in a timely manner to Ms M’s March 2021 request for help with transport caused considerable frustration and inconvenience. I do not think I could calculate how much Ms M spent on transport, or how much the Council should have provided, to recommend a refund.
49. There are complicating factors. In May 2021, a file note says Ms M was driving the children to college herself. Another file note says one of the children was seen on a bus despite claiming to be unable to use public transport. I understand both siblings were taking moped lessons in order to become independent travellers. Some transport was provided by the Council, and some by the college.
50. In these circumstances, I will recommend a symbolic payment to recognise the injustice to Ms M.

Back to top

Agreed action

51. We have published guidance to explain how we recommend remedies for people who have suffered injustice as a result of fault by a council. Our primary aim is to put people back in the position they would have been in if the fault by the Council had not occurred. When this is not possible, we may recommend the Council makes a symbolic payment.
52. While I have not upheld Ms M’s complaint the Council owes her £65,000 in fostering fees, I found delay, drift and indecision by the Council caused Ms M considerable frustration. I recommended the Council offers a symbolic payment of £500 to recognise the impact on Ms M.
53. The Council should also have offered transport assistance sooner. I recommended the Council offers a symbolic payment of £1,000 to recognise the injustice caused by the delay.
54. I recommended the Council makes the payments within six weeks of my final decision. The Council should send us evidence it has complied with the above actions.
55. The Council accepted my recommendations.
56. We can also make recommendations to ensure similar faults do not happen in the future.
57. Ofsted, the regulator, recently inspected the Council’s Children’s Services and made recommendations. There is, therefore, no need for me to make further recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

58. I have ended my investigation as the Council accepted my recommendations.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman