Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to carry out the recommendations set out by the statutory complaints process. We find the Council at fault for failing to complete the recommendations in the panel review, causing uncertainty and frustration for Ms X. The Council should apologise, reconsider the remedy findings from the statutory complaints panel and make a further award to Ms X for the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s failure to carry out the recommendations set out by the statutory complaints process. She says that she is entitled to reward payments for being a foster carer for two children, but the Council has not provided this.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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)
5. 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)
6. 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

7. 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.
8. 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.
9. As the dispute in this case, is regarding the way the Council has considered the panel findings, we will solely investigate this. We will not investigate the underlying issues which led to the complaint, as these have been already investigated by the statutory complaints process.
10. As explained above, we normally do not investigate matters in which events have occurred more than 12 months ago. However, the evidence supports that Ms X only became aware of the failure from the Council to pay the reward element in 2023. She then made a complaint to the Council, with the outcome of this only being made in December 2024 due to delays from the Council.
11. I consider it fair for Ms X to have escalated the complaint and followed the statutory complaints’ process before she asked for a review by the Ombudsman. I have therefore decided to exercise our discretion to investigate this matter.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

12. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance. Ms X and the Council now have an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
13. I have also considered the relevant statutory guidance, as set out below. Also, I have considered the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

14. 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.
15. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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.

What happened

20. The Council say that Ms X became an approved connected carer in August 2021. In September 2021, Ms X attended two days of a three-day training programme for foster carers. In June 2022, Ms X became a special guardian to the two children.
21. In July 2023, Ms X’s payments stopped without explanation, and she made a complaint about this. In October 2023, Ms X discovered that she is potentially entitled to receive a reward fee for foster care.
22. In November 2023, the Council completed its stage 2 response. An informal meeting was held in June 2024, and in December 2024 a stage three panel was held with recommendations made.
23. In February 2025 the Council responded to the stage 3 panel findings. Ms X rejected the Council’s offers regarding this and says the Council have failed to carry out a specific remedy point of the panel findings.

Analysis

24. Ms X has disputed the Council’s interpretation of the statutory complaint’s findings. I have included the relevant paragraphs from the findings below:
25. ‘There is no evidence to show that anyone attempted to communicate with Ms X in (her own language), or have policies and procedures translated for her, so that she could understand where she stood with regard to on the ‘reward element’. As a result, the panel considers that the Council did not make clear to Ms X details of its payment policy, and had it done, it is very likely that she would have completed the additional training session, thereby making herself eligible for the ‘reward payment’.’
26. ‘The panel upholds this complaint in full. We recommend that the Director considers discussing with Ms X to see how to manage this situation. If she wants to do the additional training now, attempts should be made to arrange for this to happen. Otherwise, the Local Authority should consider how to compensate Ms X for failing to inform her of how to make herself eligible to receive it., and to consider backdating the payment.’
27. The panel then went on to recommend the following:
28. ‘With regard to Complaint 13, the Local Authority should consider how it approached Ms X with regard to informing her in a clear way that she could understand, the requirements necessary to be paid the ‘reward element’. Given the findings of the Stage 2 investigation report, the Local Authority’s actions present as unreasonable. A financial remedy should be offered that reflects the position Ms X would have been but for the actions of Local Authority’.
29. The Council in response to the panel findings have offered an award of £3,500. It has provided the following justification for the award made:
30. ‘The figure of £3,500 was reached following internal discussions between the Director of Children’s Services and the Statutory Complaints Manager. In determining the amount, we referred to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies. This offer reflects our recognition that there was insufficient evidence to confirm Ms X was fully informed of the consequences of not completing the parenting course. As highlighted in the Stage 2 adjudication, the Council also accepts that more could have been done to support her in completing the training.
31. These factors were central to our consideration of an appropriate remedy. However, it is important to note that the allocated Social Worker did engage with Ms X to facilitate her registration for the course, and she did attend two of the three sessions. What we are unable to evidence is whether she fully understood the attendance requirements and the implications of not completing the full course, this does not mean that it didn’t happen.’
32. The findings from the panel upheld the complaint in full. It found the Council had not done enough to inform Ms X of the reward element and need to attend the training. I consider the Council to be at fault for its response to the panel findings. This is because it has continued to dispute whether it was at fault regarding the information it provided around the training, when the panel findings have already upheld this. It has also not explained how the offer of £3,500 has put Ms X back into a position she would been, but for the actions of the Council.
33. Although the panel findings have strongly suggested the Council should consider whether to backdate the payment given the circumstances of the complaint, they do not dictate this. Consequently, I cannot recommend the Council backdates the payment.
34. Nevertheless, I find the Council should reconsider its response to the panel’s findings. It should offer a remedy in line with paragraphs 3.9 and 4.3 (paragraphs 26 and 28 listed above) setting out exactly how the remedy figure was reached.
35. The failure to consider the panel findings correctly by the Council has impacted Ms X by causing her added unnecessary distress. I have therefore made a further award that recognises this, and I also find the Council should apologise to Ms X.

Back to top

Action

36. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Provide a written apology to Ms X for the continued delay and uncertainty regarding its handling of her statutory complaint. This apology should be in line with our guidance on making an effective apology.
2. Make payment of £100 in consideration of this increased distress caused.
3. Reconsider its response to the panel’s findings. It should offer a remedy in line with paragraphs 3.9 and 4.3 of the panel’s decision, setting out exactly how the remedy figure was reached.
37. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

38. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise, reconsider the panel findings and make a payment to Ms X.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman