Summary: Mr X complains about a Council’s actions in safeguarding him under a Private Fostering agreement between 2015 and 2020. He considers the fault contributed to a decline of his mental health. We will not investigate this complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council or achieve a meaningful outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about Kent County Council (the Council). He complains the Council failed to safeguard him as a privately fostered child, between 2015 and 2020. Mr X’s concerns include that the Council did not:
• appoint a suitably experienced social worker;
• follow up on concerns adequately; or
• work with other health and education agencies.
2. Mr X says he was prevented from being able to grow up and become independent and the failings have contributed to serious mental health issues. He wants the Council to apologise for the failings and compensate him for the harm these have caused.

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 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)
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 provider has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant, his representative and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
7. The complainant and his representative had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The events Mr X complains about happened more than a year ago. The complaint is therefore late. However, I have considered the fact Mr X was a child when the events happened and the mental health difficulties he has experienced since. Taking this into account I am satisfied there is good reason for not bringing the complaint sooner and we should exercise discretion to consider this.
9. The Council’s complaint responses explained it assessed Mr X under its Private Fostering duties (as set out in the Children (Private Arrangements for Fostering) Regulations 2005) when he arrived in the UK in 2015. It did not note any concerns about the family and considered Mr X had settled well. The Council completed annual reviews until Mr X was 16 years old. At this point the Private Fostering arrangements ended. The Council said Mr X had not raised any concerns with the social workers.
10. The Council said it became aware of issues with alcohol use by his foster father in 2018. It explained a social worker met with the family and was reassured Mr X was shielded from any effects from the foster father’s alcohol use. They also spoke to Mr X directly about this, but he did not raise any concerns. The Council said it was aware of further concerns in late 2019. The social worker spoke with Mr X and the family again. They noted Mr X’s foster parents had separated and Mr X was living with his foster mother, away from his foster father. The Council considered this reduced the risk to Mr X and no further concerns were raised.
11. The Council said records showed the social worker spoke with Mr X throughout the Private Fostering arrangement. This included speaking to Mr X alone. Mr X did not report any concerns. Mr X has since explained he did not raise concerns out of fear of returning to his country of birth. The Council response recognised this, but given Mr X or the family did not raise any concerns with the Council, it would have been unable to act on this. The Council did also offer to refer Mr X for counselling/therapy, but he declined this.
12. The Council explained it was not aware that Mr X had found his foster father’s body after he had died. It said it would have offered Mr X extra support for this. However, the Council noted it did offer Mr X bereavement counselling, but he declined this.
13. When the Private Fostering arrangement ended, the Council completed a Child & Family Assessment. The Council noted Mr X seemed that he was coping following the death of his foster father. However, the Council said the social worker recognised there may be a longer-term impact for Mr X and they recommended therapeutic support. Mr X declined this. There are therefore indications the Council considered support for Mr X beyond what was needed when the Private Fostering arrangement ended.
14. From the evidence I have seen there is nothing to suggest fault in the way the Council assessed and monitored Mr X’s Private Fostering arrangement. The Council’s reviews of Mr X appear to be in line with the Children (Private Arrangements for Fostering) Regulations 2005. The social worker appears to have considered Mr X’s circumstances, provided appropriate advice and offered support. These were professional judgements. Mr X declined all offers of support and did not raise any concerns with the Council. I recognise Mr X has explained he had good reason for not raising concerns and understand this made things difficult for him. However, the Council could only act if it was made aware of any problems or if Mr X had any additional care or support needs.
15. Because of the lack of evidence of fault by the Council, it is unlikely an investigation would be beneficial or reach a meaningful outcome. Additionally, given the Council’s role on the Private Fostering arrangements ended in 2020, even if we found fault, it would be difficult to link this to Mr X’s claimed injustice and a deterioration in his mental health.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find fault or achieve a meaningful outcome by investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman