Summary: We will not investigate X’s complaint about children service’s handling of an allegation against a foster carer. There are other bodies better placed to consider a social worker’s professionalism, data protection issues and X’s deregistration. We are unlikely to find fault in a complaint handling issue and the questions posed to them.

The complaint

1. X complains about the way the Council’s children services team handled allegations against them as a foster carer.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating; or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation; 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; (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council’s replies to him.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Background events

5. X became a foster carer in February 2024. The Council placed children with them in June 2026. Two weeks later one child alleged they had been harmed whilst in X’s home. The Council investigated and removed the children. It then referred X’s foster carer registration to its Foster Panel and recommended de registration. The Council’s Foster Panel considered the case in December 2024.
6. X complained to the Council in October 2024.

Analysis

7. X’s complaint covered five issues:

X alleged a social worker, Y, had used derogatory and discriminatory language towards them.

8. The Council’s complaints investigation found these allegations were not corroborated. There is no practical prospect that we would be able to investigate the allegations. Also our role is to investigate the actions of the Council as a corporate body, not to hold a single officer accountable. If X has concerns about the professionalism or integrity of an individual social worker, it is reasonable to expect them to report their concerns to their professional body, Social Work England.

X says Y’s report to the Foster Panel was biased and unfair.

9. X had the chance to present their own account and views to the Foster Panel. X can also request a review via the Independent Review Mechanism of the Foster Panel’s decision. It is reasonable to expect X to use that process. Also, X has the right to request records are ‘rectified’. This means any factual inaccuracies are corrected. If the Council refuses to do so, they can complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). Parliament set up the ICO to consider data protection disputes which includes ‘right to rectification’ disputes. The ICO are better placed than us to consider if the Council should change its records particularly because there are complex exemptions for children’s case files.

X says Y and another officer asked their family historical personal questions which they felt was unnecessary.

10. The Council has apologised for upset caused. Given that the Council has a duty towards both foster carers and the children it is usual for this to mean the foster carers relevant background is discussed. We are therefore unlikely to find fault.

X says once they had complained about Y the Council should have removed Y from the case and Y should not have been involved in the Foster Panel.

11. It is not normal practice to remove a social worker from a case every time a complaint is made against them. Given Y’s involvement we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s decision Y needed to be involved in the Foster Panel.

X says their initial complaint to the Council was provided to Y and should not have been.

12. The Council says it did not realise X did not want Y to see the complaint. The ICO is the UK’s independent authority set up to uphold information rights. It promotes openness by public bodies and protects the privacy of individuals. It deals with complaints about public authorities’ failures to comply with data protection legislation. This includes disclosing information to third parties without consent. It is reasonable to expect X to complain about this issue to the ICO.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate X’s complaint because SWE and the ICO are better placed. And we are unlikely to find fault in the other elements.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman