Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council conducted a virtual meeting. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about how the Council conducted a virtual Fostering Panel meeting. She said she was incorrectly admitted to the meeting early and overheard the Fostering Panel discussing her practice. She said the Council then failed to offer her any support after the meeting. Ms X said the Council’s actions had caused her distress.
2. Ms X wants the Council to:
• Provide a written apology from the Panel Advisor.
• Provide a copy of any updated policies following her complaint.
• To complete staff briefings about Fostering Panel procedures.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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, or

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council investigated Ms X’s complaints through the Children’s Statutory Complaints Procedure. It appointed an investigating officer (IO) and independent person (IP) to oversee the complaint. The stage two report upheld all Ms X’s complaints. The IO made recommendations to the Council. These included the Council issue an apology to Ms X, to amend its Video Conferencing policy and to ensure the relevant sections of Foster Panel meeting minutes were distributed to foster carers.
7. The Council accepted the IO’s findings. A Service Director at the Council wrote to Ms X and apologised. They confirmed the Council was implementing the IO’s wider recommendations.
8. Although Ms X wants the Council to take further action, we will not investigate this complaint. That is because:
• The Service Director was an appropriately senior officer to apologise on behalf of the Council. We would not direct a specefic council officer to write the apology to Ms X. Therefore, we cannot achieve the outcome Ms X wants.
• The Council’s apology is an appropriate remedy for any personal injustice caused to Ms X. Therefore, there is no significant injustice unremedied.
• The stage two investigation made appropriate service improvement recommendations to address the faults identified. It is not necessary for the Ombudsman to make additional recommendations. Therefore, further investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome.
• The Council can provide Ms X a copy of its updated policy. This does not require an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman