Summary: Mrs Y complains about the Council’s decision to approve her as a connected foster carer. As a result of that decision, Mrs Y says she has experienced financial loss because the Council has not paid the relevant fostering fees. We have not investigated the whole complaint because the Council’s initial approval happened in 2014 and Mrs Y could have complained sooner. We find fault in some of the more recent matters complained about and the Council has agreed to complete the remedial actions set out at the end of this statement.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y complains that the Council has treated her and her husband as connected carers, rather than general foster carers, and they have suffered financial loss as a result.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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)
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

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have exercised my discretion to investigate matters from the 2022 panel meeting when the Council considered Mrs Y’s request to become a general foster carer. Although the panel was over two years ago, I note there was some significant delay by the Council when responding to Mrs Y’s complaint. This prevented Mrs Y from approaching the Ombudsman sooner.
7. I have not investigated matters which happened before 2022. This is because the records show Mrs Y raised concerns about her level of pay from 2015. There was nothing to prevent Mrs Y from complaining to the Council, and then the Ombudsman, within 12 months (and by August 2015) of her finding out that she was approved as a connected or kinship carer, rather than a professional or general foster carer. Due to the significant passage of time, I do not consider we could complete a thorough and evidence-based investigation.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. During my investigation I considered the information provided by Mrs Y and discussed the complaint with her by telephone.
9. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response. I also consulted the relevant law, guidance and caselaw about financial support for foster carers.
10. I considered the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Jurisdiction before deciding which parts of Mrs Y’s complaint we should investigate.
11. Mrs Y and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

12. When a child in need needs to be accommodated by a council the Children Act says councils should first consider placing a child with family or friends, as long as they are ‘suitable’ and able to provide care. If the council is considering the carer as a family and friends foster carer, the carer will be subject to the same checks as professional foster carers. (See standard 30 of the Fostering services: national minimum standards)
13. Family and friends foster carers are sometimes referred to as ‘Kinship’ or ‘Connected’ carers. They are entitled to receive a fostering allowance from the council and other practical support for them and the child. The fostering allowance is provided to cover the costs of caring for the child. The Government sets out national minimum standards each year for the rates it would like councils to set as a minimum. Councils then set their own rates. The statutory guidance and case law says family and friends foster carers must receive the same fostering allowance as professional unrelated foster carers (minus any professional foster carer fee element which is remuneration for the carer). The council can take off an amount equivalent to child benefit and child tax credit from the allowance if the friends and family carer receives these. This is because the family and friends foster carer can claim these benefits and professional fosters carers cannot.
14. The courts said that councils should not restrict connected carers to receiving the basic fostering allowance if a non-related council foster carer would also have been entitled to receive added allowances for the child: for example, where the child has a disability needing extra support. Unless there are exceptional reasons, the connected carers should also receive that enhanced rate for the child. Fostering allowance is not means tested.
15. Connected foster carers do not usually receive a fee or ‘remuneration’ element in addition to the allowance in the same way a professional foster carer would. This is because they do not have the required qualifications, experience or approval to accept other foster placements from the council.

Training for foster carers

16. The Training Support and Development (TSD) Standards sets out the training and development pathway for foster carers at different stages of their fostering career. The Fostering Regulation (2011) requires a fostering service to "provide foster carers with, training, advice, information and support...as appears necessary in the interests of the children placed with them".
17. The Statutory Guidance on Fostering says that foster carers should be supported to maintain an ongoing training and development portfolio to show how they are meeting the skills required of them.
18. Foster carers should be able to evidence the fostering Training Development Standards (TSD) within the specified timescales. The Council’s published procedures says that, “Foster carers should achieve the training, support and development standards in foster care within one year of approval, or within 18 months if they are family and friends carers”.

Chronology of key events leading to the complaint

19. In January 2014 Mrs Y emailed the Council to enquire about potentially caring for a young person called D who was at the time in a foster placement with Mrs Y’s mother. Mrs Y asked if she could adopt D with a package of financial support or foster him on a long-term basis.
20. On 29 June 2014 the records show that Mrs Y completed a document entitled ‘Form C (Connected Person (Family and Friends) report’. Mrs Y signed the document to confirm she was happy with the information within the report.
21. The Council approved Mrs Y as a connected persons carer on 13 August. D moved in with Mrs Y five days later. The Council issued a letter on 19 August 2014 to confirm its decision. The letter said that Mrs Y was approved as “kinship foster carer for [D]”.
22. The minutes of the panel on 13 August show that Mrs Y would receive an allowance between £137.76 and £231.63 per week depending on the age of the child. This was in accordance with the Council’s position at the time regarding allowances paid to connected carers. The minutes also show a discussion around permanency planning for D with a hope to explore a Special Guardianship Order (SGO) or adoption in the future.
23. The Council has provided an unsigned copy of the contract which says, “Kinship Carers will receive an allowance payment on a weekly basis, which will be an age related allowance for each child/young person placed with the” and “A seasonal bonus of £100 per household will be paid to kinship carers. This will be payable in July and December each year”.
24. In November 2014 a social worker emailed Mrs Y with a copy of the training booklet and booking form for the mandatory training sessions.
25. Around one year later, Mrs Y contacted the Council. She said she had spoken with another foster carer who receives £500 per month for a solo placement. Mrs Y queried why she was not receiving the same support for D.
26. When Mrs Y queried the same point again in November 2015 the Council said:

“In terms of your e-mail below on the issue of a monthly fee, the simple answer to this is that we do not pay kinship carers any fee. The reason for this is that kinship carers are approved for a named child only and not therefore in a position to offer alternative placements or indeed additional placements. The foster carers you have referred to who are receiving £500 per month, are approved as general foster carers and therefore required to take on other children pending availability”.

27. The relevant fostering allowance at the time was £157.73 per week for a child aged between five and ten.
28. Mrs Y later decided not to pursue a SGO for D due to the financial implications.
29. The Council emailed Mrs Y and explained that she would not be financially disadvantaged if she applied for a SGO because the Council agreed to match the allowance it currently pays. Mrs Y said she wanted to be a general foster carer, not a connected persons carer.
30. Five years later Mrs Y received an email from D’s primary school, which she had been mistakenly copied into. This contained negative remarks about Mrs Y. A meeting took place and Mrs Y says was told that she did not meet the criteria to be a connected carer because she is not related to D.
31. On 20 August 2020 a social worker emailed Mrs Y to say, “update assessment to Form F from Form C needs to be completed” and “Updated assessment and SHR review to be presented to the Fostering Panel – with a view to change approval from kinship carers to foster carers (depending on outcome of assessment”.
32. The Council told Mrs Y the next scheduled panel meeting was September 2020.
33. In November 2020 Mrs Y was waiting to hear from the Council about her application to become a foster carer. She contacted a solicitor who wrote to the Council on her behalf. Mrs Y was advised to proceed with the panel process and then begin either a legal or complaints process to claim any backdated payments.
34. Mrs Y’s solicitor issued a letter before claim. The Council responded in June 2021 and in summary it said:
• The Council’s fostering policy has regard to the relevant case law: R (on the application of) v London Borough of Tower Hamlets [2013] EWCA Civ 904 (24 July 2013) This says family and friends foster carers should receive any enhancements that would have been paid for the child’s needs to a professional foster carer, unless there are exceptional reasons not to.
• In that case the Court noted the important difference between allowances (which reflect the cost of providing for the needs of the children) and fees (which are paid to a foster carer for their services).
• The Council pays the same allowances for all looked after children irrespective of whether they are placed with general foster carers or connected carers. Allowances also attract other payments, such as holiday and birthday payments and travel expenses.
• The Council gave its view that Mrs Y has not acknowledged the difference between fostering allowances and fostering fees. To help clarify the Council attached two different forms of contract used.
35. The Form F ‘Prospective Foster Carer Report’ completed in 2022 said “[Mr and Mrs Y] are not in a position to take any other children at this time as they do not have a spare bedroom available but would be willing to consider this in the future once their circumstances change”. The form went on to say, “I recommend that [Mr and Mrs Y] be approved as Foster Carers for 1 child 5-18 years, any gender”.
36. The Council held a panel meeting on 27 July 2022 to discuss Mrs Y’s request for ‘Form F’ approval. After considering her request, the Council decided that Mrs Y needed to complete further training, weekly logs and life story work for D and to return to panel in three months’ time for reconsideration.
37. After the panel Mrs Y met with a senior officer to discuss her concerns about the process. The officer told Mrs Y that they had received complaints from panel members regarding the conduct of some other members on the day. The officer agreed to review the panel minutes.
38. In August 2022 Mrs Y received a letter of apology from the Council for the treatment she received from the panel chair, which the Council said was unacceptable. The Council also apologised for, “the inaccurate information you have received over the years and for the number of social workers that [D] has been allocated”.
39. The Council said that Mrs Y’s case for approval should not have been presented to the panel as she is a sole carer for D and that Mrs Y does not have the household capacity to take on another child. The Council also confirmed the Form F presented to the panel was not complete.
40. Regarding an SGO the Council said it could send a draft plan to help Mrs Y understand what to expect. The Council also said, “Should you wish to proceed with the SGO, we give an undertaking to pay the single fee of £173 per week. The age-related allowance per week is £219.27 (minus child benefit when claimed, and the order is in place). The payments will commence asap from the point of you giving an undertaking to pursue the SGO”. The Council also offered an additional £500 payment for Mrs Y to seek legal advice.
41. Mrs Y submitted a formal complaint on 7 February 2023 which the Council logged on 24 February. Mrs Y then had a virtual meeting with the Council on 8 March to discuss her complaint. The Council responded in writing on 17 April. In summary, it said:
• The records show Mrs Y initially wanted to adopt D but was worried about the financial implications, such as having to give up work. Mrs Y therefore requested financial support which the Council refused, and Mrs Y completed a ‘Form C’ to be assessed as a connected foster carer.
• The Council commissioned an independent social worker in 2020 to complete the ‘Form F’ but the social worker failed to complete the form which caused significant delay. The Council handed the case over to another social worker.
• The Council has agreed to pay a combination of carer fee, plus child allowance to support an SGO for D. Mrs Y started the SGO assessment but requested for this to stop, pending the outcome of her complaint.
• The Council said the evidence shows Mrs Y reviewed and signed their agreement to the Form C and therefore she understood the purpose of the assessment was to secure approval as a connected carer.
• The Council says it treated Mrs Y fairly and appropriately in line with the policies and minimum standards.
• The Council acknowledges some parts of the process could have been better managed, including the Form F assessment, the decision to present the form and the quality of engagement regarding the SGO.
42. Dissatisfied with the response, Mrs Y complained again at the second stage of the Council’s process. The Council reviewed the complaint made maintained its view that Mrs Y had sufficient knowledge of the role she was assessed for. The Council said it could not find any records to show it told Mrs Y she would receive the fostering fees one year after approval.
43. The Council maintained, “… in the absence of any formal written agreement of financial fostering fees afforded to [Mr and Mrs Y] and given the level of creativity employed by the local authority to offer Mr and Mrs [Y] a bespoke financial Special Guardianship package, which incorporates the ‘mainstream fostering fee’ element, it is evident, the local authority acted in a manner suggestive of meeting the needs of [D], whilst acknowledging Mr and Mrs [Y’s] requests. Therefore complaint 2 is not upheld”.
44. Mrs Y complained again at the third and final stage of the complaint process. The Council responded on 23 January 2024 and in summary it said:
• The investigation showed that evidence in the records, including a copy of the contract issued in 2014, clearly stated that Mrs Y was a kinship carer. The title of the contract said: ‘Southend Kinship Carer’.
• The concern about bedrooms was noted due to the capacity of Mrs Y’s home rather than any concerns about her ability to care for another young person.
• The Council has identified money owed to Mrs Y of £1600. D has been with Mrs Y for nine years and she is entitled to 18 ‘half yearly’ payments of £100 plus a payment for December 2023. In those nine years, the Council has only made three payments. The Council apologised and agreed to make the outstanding payments to Mrs Y.
• The Council has already apologised for the decision in 2020 to put Mrs Y’s case to panel. Mrs Y was already approved as a connected carer and had no capacity to foster additional children. The Council said the panel process was therefore “unnecessary”.
• The Council reminded Mrs Y of Regulation 27 of the ‘Care Planning, Placement and Case Review Regulations’ (2010). This says that connected carers are a relative, friend or other person connected with a child. Connected carers are always approved for a specific named child.
• Mainstream foster carers receive approval to care for any child between the ages of 0 to 18. They are approved under the Fostering Regulations (2011): regulation 26(1) and National Minimum Standards.

Was there fault in the Council’s actions causing injustice to Mrs Y?

45. For the reasons explained in paragraph seven of this decision statement, I have not investigated what happened in Mrs Y’s case between 2014 and 2022. I have therefore made no findings on Mrs Y’s claim that she was misled by the Council and told that she could apply to receive fostering fees one-year post-approval. I will also make no findings on whether the Council sufficiently explained to Mrs Y the key differences between a general foster carer and a connected carer.
46. In my view, and based on the information available to me, I find fault with some of the Council’s actions between the panel meeting in August 2022 and Mrs Y’s approach to the Ombudsman in February 2024. This is because:
• The Council provided confusing and misleading advice to Mrs Y about her ability to become a professional foster carer. The Form F approval clearly states that Mrs Y was unable at that time to provide foster care for anyone other than D due to the capacity of her house. On the other hand, the form also makes a recommendation for approval. The Council has already apologised for the way it handled the Form F approval process and the decision to present the case to panel.
• The Council significantly delayed in completing Form F and Mrs Y’s ability to attend the panel was therefore significantly delayed. This meant that Mrs Y experienced unnecessary time, trouble and anxiety whilst waiting for the panel to go ahead. The Council has apologised for this.
• Whilst at the panel the Council acknowledged that some panel members made inappropriate remarks. This caused Mrs Y avoidable distress at an already difficult time. The Council has apologised for this.
• Mrs Y waited longer than she should have done to receicve seapayments for D. The Council has made the necessary payments and apologised.
• The Council delayed significantly when responding to Mrs Y’s corporate complaint. From start to finish, the process took almost 12 months. The Council’s complaint policy suggests a maximum timeframe of 70 working days. This significant delay caused Mrs Y avoidable time, trouble and frustration. The Council has apologised.
47. In my view, there was no fault in how the panel made its decision in August 2022 to defer approval for Mrs Y to become a general foster carer. The panel identified some gaps in Mrs Y’s development; in particular, the requirement to complete the TDS within 18 months of receiving approval to care for D. The Council was entitled to reach this decision and in the absence of procedural fault I am unable to challenge it.

Back to top

Agreed action

48. In addition to the written apology already provided, within four weeks of my final decision the Council has agreed to:
• Pay £500 to Mrs Y. This is a symbolic payment in recognition of the avoidable distress, time and trouble caused by the fault identified in this statement.
49. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

50. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault in some of the matters complained about which caused injustice to Mrs Y. In my view, the actions listed in the section above will provide an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman