Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not correctly follow policy and procedure when responding to her complaint. Ms X said this caused her to no longer be a foster carer and had a financial impact. She wants the Council to admit it is wrong and fix the issues. The Ombudsman found the Council correctly followed the statutory complaints process but is at fault for delay.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council did not follow policy and procedure when responding to her complaint. She said it has not considered the information correctly and has inaccurate information on its records. Ms X said this has caused her to no longer be a foster carer and has cost her financially as she sought legal advice. She wants the Council to admit it is wrong and fix the issues.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).
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)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

5. I have only investigated whether the Council properly considered Ms X’s complaint and if it has correctly gone through each stage of the statutory complaints process. I have not investigated the substantive issues. I have provided this information for background only.
6. I have not investigated the Council’s decision to deregister Ms X as a foster carer. This is because there is a separate independent review mechanism which Ms X has used. It is therefore outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. As part of the investigation I have considered the following:
• The complaint and the documents provided by the complainant.
• Documents provided by the Council and its comments in response to my enquiries.
• The Children Act 1989, the Children Act 1989 Representations Procedure (England) Regulations 2006, Getting the Best from Complaints statutory guidance.
8. Ms X and the organisation 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

Relevant legislation

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. We also published practitioner guidance on the procedures, setting out our expectations.
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 investigating officer (IO) to look into the complaint and an independent person (IP) who is responsible for overseeing the investigation and ensuring its independence.
12. Following the investigation, a senior manager (the adjudicating officer) at the council should carry out an adjudication. The officer considers the IO report and any report from the IP. They decide what the council’s response to the complaint will be, including what action it will take. The adjudicating officer should then write to the complainant with a copy of the investigation report, any report from the independent person and the adjudication response.
13. The whole stage two process should be completed within 25 working days but guidance allows an extension for up to 65 working days where required.
14. 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 working days of the date of request, and then issue a final response within 20 working days of the panel hearing.
15. The statutory children’s complaints procedure was set up to provide children, young people and those involved in their welfare with access to an independent, thorough and prompt response to their concerns. Because of this, if a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it.
16. However, we may look at whether there were any flaws in the stage two investigation or stage three review panel that could call the findings into question. We may also consider whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation and review panel, and whether it has completed any recommendations without delay.

The Council’s policies and procedures

17. The Council’s website explains how to make a complaint about children’s social care. This is in line with the statutory complaints process as set out above.

What happened

18. I have summarised below the key events; this is not intended to be a detailed account.
19. The Council approved Ms X as a foster carer in 2021.
20. Ms X complained to the Council in January 2023. She said children’s social services team was not acting in the best interests of the children in their care. She said she believed she was being bullied and penalised due to one of her foster children making a complaint themself. She said the social worker believes Ms X encouraged the foster child to make the complaint, Ms X said this is not the case. Ms X said the Council decided to move the foster child from her care because of this, she said this was not in the child’s best interests.

The statutory complaints process

21. The Council investigated the complaint under the three-stage statutory procedure. The Council issued a stage one response in late March 2023.
22. Ms X was not happy with the response and requested a stage two investigation at the end of March. An independent investigation took place in early May. The report is dated August 2023, and was amended in November 2023.
23. Ms X asked for a further investigation. An independent panel reviewed the matter at stage three. The report is dated February 2024.

The stage two and three investigation

24. Ms X met with the IO and IP in early May 2023 and agreed the terms of reference. These are set out at the beginning of the report.
25. I will not consider every complaint listed in the terms of reference, but instead focus on those which Ms X highlighted in her complaint to the Ombudsman. I have provided a summary of the findings of the complaint process below.
26. Complaint one: Lack of support provided to prevent placement breaking down.
27. At stage two, the IO found the Council put a lot of support in place to prevent the placement with the foster children breaking down and noted the day and night support service which it had commissioned, drama therapy, CAMHS consultation and referrals to support groups and charities. The IO did not uphold this element of Ms X’s complaint.
28. At stage three, the panel said it was incorrect to say there was lack of support. It agreed with the stage two report.
29. Complaint two: Information held on records is inaccurate.
30. At stage two, the IO considered Ms X’s concerns and the examples she provided (the reasons recorded by the social worker for the breakdown of placements and the actions taken by the social worker) and did not uphold this part of her complaint.
31. The Panel considered the same at stage three but felt the complaint was confusingly written. To help aid understanding, it divided the complaint into two parts. While it found both parts of the specific complaint were not upheld, it considered the social workers could have acted differently. It therefore recommended this part of the complaint was partially upheld.
32. Complaint six: Ms X said the social worker told her she should not have given her foster child a copy of the complaint’s procedure.
33. In the stage two response, the IO referred to guidance and good practice handling complaints and found the social worker advised Ms X to try and resolve issues before making a formal complaint. If the foster child still wanted to formally complain, there would be no barrier. The IO found it was not the social workers plan to prevent Ms X from helping the foster child make a complaint. The IO did not uphold this element of the complaint.
34. The stage three panel upheld the stage two decision.
35. Complaint eight: there was no plan to manage the foster child visiting Ms X after the foster child left Ms X’s care.
36. At stage two, the IO found the social worker told Ms X any contact with the foster child after the placement ended should be agreed by the social worker. When the foster child arrived at Ms X’s house, Ms X knew she should contact the social worker and take advice. The IO did not uphold this element of Ms X’s complaint.
37. The stage three panel agreed with the IO and did not uphold this element of Ms X’s complaint. The panel agreed with Ms X’s suggestion that information in a leaflet setting out what to do and when if a former foster child visits a former foster carer unannounced, would be useful.
38. Complaint ten: Ms X was excluded from meetings.
39. At stage two, the IO partially upheld this complaint. The IO said the social worker failed to arrange a Care Planning meeting. They also found there were some meetings the social workers did not invite Ms X to; these were meetings to discuss her practice as a foster care which she was specifically excluded from.
40. The stage three panel disagreed with the stage two response and explained the complaint was not about a meeting that should have happened and did not, but about meetings Ms X was excluded from. The Panel did not uphold this part of Ms X’s complaint, as Ms X was invited to all the suitable meetings, and excluded from those which were not.
41. Complaint 11: Ms X was dissatisfied with stage one response.
42. The IO upheld this part of Ms X’s complaint. The IO found the customer care officer should have taken specific information from Ms X about her concerns at stage one. They should have identified and gained input from all the teams involved and the team manager should have contacted staff that had left the Council.
43. The stage three panel upheld the decision.

Outcomes and recommendations

44. In the outcomes section of the stage two report the IO identified areas of the service which were inadequate, for example, lack of honesty about placement moves and a contact agreement should have been drafted so Ms X was clear about the contact arrangements after the placement ended.
45. The IO made recommendations, these included:
• Record keeping to improve.
• Transition timetable created where possible to ensure placement runs smoothly and for social workers to be honest about placement moves.
• Ensure sufficient details are taken about complaints and contact staff who have left the Council for input on complaints.
• Contract of expectation to be drafted where concerns about contact.
• The Council to apologise to Ms X for the way it dealt with her complaint.
46. The stage three panel agreed with the IO outcomes and recommendations. It also included additional recommendations:
• Produce a leaflet for foster carers explaining what to do if a former foster child visits unannounced.
• Where social workers know in advance a foster child in likely to visit a former foster carer, they should speak to the foster carer before the event.
47. The Council wrote to Ms X in the middle of March. The letter confirmed it had considered the stage three panel report and agreed with the findings, outcomes and recommendations and apologised for the parts of the complaint that had been upheld or partially upheld.
48. In response to my enquiries, the Council confirmed it has completed all the recommendations.

Analysis

49. If a complaint has already been through the statutory complaints procedure, this means the complainant has already had access to an independent investigation.
50. Consequently, we will not normally re-investigate such a complaint unless we have reason to believe the previous investigation was flawed.

The complaint investigation process

51. I have considered the documents from Ms X’s complaint, and I note that:
• The IO met with Ms X at the start of the stage two investigation and agreed the terms of reference for her complaint. These were considered and addressed throughout the investigation at both stage two and three.
• The investigation reports refer to relevant case records. These records include those of Ms X herself, and those of the foster children in her care.
• The investigation reports refer to interviewing relevant staff.
• The decision-making was explained in detail, with reference to guidance and legislation.
• The Council does not appear to have obviously misinterpreted the law or acted beyond its powers.
• I have seen no evidence from Ms X which undermines the Council’s findings.
• While there were some slight differences between the findings at stage two and three, there were no significant disagreements between the investigating officer, the independent person, the panel and the Council.
• The Council’s findings do not appear unreasonable.
52. Because of this, it is unlikely I would add anything significant to what the Council has already said.

Timeliness of the complaints handling

53. The Council delayed issuing the stage one response by roughly six weeks. The stage two response was by around three months. This is delay, this is fault, which caused Ms X frustration and distress.
54. In response to my enquiries, the Council accepts there was delay in handling the complaint at stage one and stage two. It explained the delay at stage one was due to the manager not responding within the deadline and the stage two was delayed because the adjudicator who needed to sign the final letter was on leave.

Back to top

Agreed action

55. Within four weeks of the final decision, the Council agreed to apologise and pay Ms X a symbolic payment of £250 to recognise the distress caused by delay in responding to the complaint.
56. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

57. I have completed my investigation. The Council correctly followed the statutory complaints process but is at fault for delay in the process.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman