Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Mrs B’s complaint about support she received as a foster carer. It is unlikely we could add to the Council’s own complaint investigation, or the remedial action it proposes.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs B, complains that the Council failed to support her properly as a foster carer. She wants compensation for the injustice she experienced.

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 we could not add to any previous investigation by the council, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information from Mrs B and the Council. Both 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

The Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies

4. We do not punish councils in the way a court might. This means we do not award ‘damages’ or ‘compensation’.
5. Instead, we can ask a council to make a payment to ‘symbolise and acknowledge’ the distress someone suffered because of what it did wrong.   
6. If we decide it is appropriate, we normally recommend a remedy payment for distress of up to £500. But we can recommend higher payments if we decide the distress was especially severe or prolonged.

What happened

The Council’s investigation into Miss B’s complaint

7. Mrs B first complained to the Council in early 2023. The Council responded under the three-stage Children Act complaints procedure. This involved an independent investigation (stage 2) and a review by an independent panel (stage 3).
8. The Council upheld some of Mrs B’s complaints following all three stages of the complaint procedure. It accepted that it had:
• failed to proactively offer support to Mrs B’s mother to help her overcome her language and reading difficulties;
• failed to make the process clear when a foster child moved from Mrs B’s care;
• failed to properly manage Mrs B’s expectations about future contact with, and updates on, the foster child;
• failed to communicate with Mrs B properly at stage 1 of the complaints procedure; and
• included some factual inaccuracies in its stage 1 response.
9. However, both the stage 2 investigator and the panel felt that the Council’s records did not support the rest of Mrs B’s complaints. The investigator, in particular, referred extensively to case records and relevant legislation.

The Council’s offers to Miss B

10. To recognise her injustice, the Council offered Mrs B:
• apologies for its mistakes;
• a meeting to discuss her ongoing and future role as a foster carer;
• up-to-date fostering guidance; and
• a series of service improvements, such as policy reviews. This included measures to improve the Councils’ identification of, and support for, people who do not speak English.

My findings

11. If a complaint has already been through the three-stage Children Act complaints procedure, this means the complainant has already had access to an independent investigation.
12. Consequently, we will not normally re-investigate such a complaint unless we have reason to believe the previous investigation was flawed.
13. I have considered the documents from Mrs B’s complaint, and I note that:
• each part of the complaint was considered and addressed by the Council;
• the stage 2 investigator referred, where relevant, to case records and legislation;
• parts of the complaint are about matters which caused no significant injustice to Mrs B (such as minor factual errors in the Council’s stage 1 complaint response);
• parts of the complaint were upheld, and therefore require no additional scrutiny; and
• in the parts of the complaint which were not upheld, the findings of the stage 2 investigator and the panel do not appear obviously unreasonable, given the evidence summarised in the two reports.
14. Because of this, it is unlikely I would be able to add anything significant to what the Council has already said. If I were to reinvestigate the complaint, it is also unlikely that this would lead to a substantially different outcome for Mrs B.
15. I have, however, considered whether the Council’s proposed remedies properly recognise the avoidable distress Mrs B may have experienced.
16. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance outlines that we can recommend small, symbolic payments which recognise an injustice. However, we cannot order that someone receive ‘compensation’ in the way a court might.
17. No financial remedy I could suggest would deliver the outcome Mrs B wants (compensation). With this in mind – along with what appears to be relatively limited injustice in the context of the complaints we investigate – I have decided that a financial remedy would not be appropriate.
18. This means I am satisfied that the Council has adequately investigated Mrs B’s complaint and remedied any injustice arising from it. No further input from the Ombudsman is needed.

Back to top

Final decision

19. I have discontinued my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman