Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about a social worker’s report to a Standards of Care investigation. The Council has declined to investigate Miss X’s complaint as it was not involved in the production of the disputed report or the decision to deregister Miss X as a foster carer. We cannot achieve the outcome Miss X wants.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about a social worker who produced a report for a Standards of Care investigation, which she believes led to her deregistration as a foster carer. She wants the social worker dismissed for the false statements they made. She is unhappy the Council has declined to investigate her complaint.

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 cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal; or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. When we find fault, we can recommend remedies for significant personal injustice, or to prevent future injustice, caused by that fault. We look at organisational fault, not individual professional competence. Decisions about individual’s fitness to practise or work are for the organisations concerned, and for professional regulators, not the Ombudsman. (Local Government Act 1974, s26(1) and s26A(1) as amended)

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 has explained to Miss X that it did not produce the report for the Standards of Care investigation and has not had sight of the report. A fostering agency appears to have written the report and conducted Standards of Care investigation. The Council has also explained it cannot disclose information about the young person involved to Miss X because she does not have parental responsibility for them.
7. There is unlikely to be evidence of fault in the Council declining to investigate Miss X’s complaint about this matter. It appears reasonable given it does not employ the social worker who wrote the report nor had any involvement in the decision to deregister Miss X as a foster carer.
8. Foster carers may ask the Independent Review Mechanism (IRM) to review a fostering agency decision maker’s decision not to register them, to de-register them or to amend the terms of their approval. There is no further right of appeal beyond this and the foster carer wishes to pursue any dissatisfaction with the IRM process, this would be a matter for the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman as the IRM is the responsibility of the Department for Education.
9. There is no merit in us investigating this matter further in these circumstances. Even if the matter fell under our jurisdiction and related to a Council employee, we have no powers to direct the Council takes specific disciplinary action, such as dismissal of an employee.
10. Our role is to investigate the Council’s actions as a corporate body, rather than the actions of an individual. If Miss X has concerns about the professionalism or conduct of an individual social worker, she can report her concerns to their professional body, Social Work England.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman