Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in ceasing the complainant’s foster care payments. This is because investigation would not add anything significant to the response the Council has already made, or lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, complains that the Council was at fault in ceasing her foster care payments without notice, failing to reimburse her for the missed payments and failing to offer an appropriate remedy for the fault on its part.

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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X is a foster carer for the Council and receives foster care payments in respect of a young person. The Council overpaid her for a significant period in 2024. The complaint correspondence Ms X has provided shows that the Council does not dispute that Ms X was unaware of the overpayments when they were made.
6. Once the Council’s payment system identified the overpayment, it ceased Ms X’s payments without notice or explanation. She says this deprived her of her entire income. The Council failed to reinstate her regular payments for seven weeks. Ms X says this caused her financial hardship, uncertainty, distress and costs she would not otherwise have incurred. In addition, she says she was put to significant time and trouble in corresponding with the Council on the matter.
7. In her complaint to the Council Ms X asked for the payments she had been deprived of for seven weeks to be made, as well as reimbursement of her costs and a financial remedy for the time and trouble she had been put to.
8. The Council substantially upheld Ms X’s complaint. It accepted that it was at fault in failing to notify Ms X before beginning to recoup the overpayment, and that it took too long to reinstate the regular payments once the error was identified. It apologised and offered a payment of £300 in recognition of Ms X’s time and trouble. It offered to recoup the outstanding debt at a rate of £15 per week. It did not however agree to repay the seven weeks of payments Ms X was deprived of, or reimburse her expenses. Ms X does not believe the action the Council has taken amounts to an appropriate remedy for the injustice she was caused.
9. The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because investigation would not add anything significant to the response the Council has already made, or lead to a different outcome. We do not normally investigate complaints which have been substantially upheld, as is the case here. It is not a good use of our resources to do so.
10. In this case, the Council has identified where it was at fault, so investigation is not required to establish this. The substantive outstanding matter is Ms X’s contention that the action the Council has taken to address the complaint is inadequate.
11. The overpayment itself is not in dispute. Therefore, the Council’s argument that it cannot pay Ms X the amounts it withheld while the debt exists is reasonable and it is not for the Ombudsman to intervene to substitute an alternative view. The arrangement the Council has offered to recoup the debt appears proportionate in the circumstances of the case.
12. The payment the Council has made in respect of the time and trouble Ms X has been put to is broadly in line with what the Ombudsman would be likely to recommend, so further consideration is not warranted. If Ms X believes the Council’s actions have caused her demonstrable financial losses, she may wish to pursue them as damages in court. The Ombudsman will not intervene,

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because investigation would not add anything significant to the response the Council has already made, or lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman