Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about failings by the Council when after a foster child returned to the care of Mr X and his wife. Investigation by us would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome as the Council has already offered a suitable remedy for two points of complaint and we could not reach a robust view of a third point by investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X said the Council:

• Failed to make the correct payments to him and his wife after a former foster child returned to their care in 2021;
• Called them to a concerns meeting at short notice based on inaccurate information and without telling them the nature of the meeting; and
• Belittled his wife at the family home in January 2021.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
    
3. 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. I did not consider three other points of complaint Mr X made to the Council on behalf of the foster child, now an adult, Mr Z. This is because the complaint correspondence Mr X provided stated Mr Z had made his own complaint about those matters via an advocate. Mr Z would be welcome to complain to us, via an advocate if desired, if he remains dissatisfied with the Council’s response to his complaint.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The complaint correspondence shows the Council accepted it failed to make the correct payments to Mr X and his wife. It also showed it agreed to pay Mr X and his wife what it owed them, with the final amount yet to be established at the time the Council issued its final response to the complaint. Mr X has not told us that the Council has failed to complete this part of the remedy for the lost payments. I therefore assume the Council had paid back what it owed Mr X and his wife.
8. The Council did not in its final response to Mr X directly address whether there were concerns that would have justified the concerns meeting. However, it offered a payment of £1,000 for the distress caused by the way the meeting was organised. I have therefore considered what amount we would have recommended for distress if we had investigated and found no evidence to justify the calling of the concerns meeting, as well as poor organisation. We may recommend a distress payment of up to £1,000 in cases where distress has been severe or prolonged. The payment the Council offered is therefore at the limit we would have been likely to have recommended even if an investigation by us had found the meeting was entirely misconceived.
9. The conversation between Mr X’s wife and the social worker did not take place where it could be witnessed by independent observers. Therefore, investigation by us would be unlikely to establish exactly what was said, or the manner or tone of voice used.
10. It is clear there was fault by the Council in two of the three matters referred to here. But investigation by us would only be justified if there was a realistic prospect of us recommending further remedy in those matters, or of finding further fault in the third matter. In my view, based on the remedy offered by the Council, and the difficulty of establishing what happened when the social worker met Mr X’s wife, that is not likely.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because investigation by us would be unlikely to result in a recommendation of further remedy beyond that already offered by the Council, or the finding of further fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman