Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a children safeguarding investigation as we are unlikely to achieve more than the Council’s complaint response. It is reasonable for Mr X to have sought a review from the Independent Review Mechanism for a fostering panel's decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council’s children services team failed to properly investigate allegations made against him and wrongly de registered him 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 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.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Background events

5. In March 2024 the Council received an allegation against Mr X about the care of a child they fostered. The Council investigated this allegation and suspended him as a foster carer. It then referred his case to its fostering panel. In January 2025 that fostering panel recommended the Council deregister him as a foster carer. The Council wrote to Mr X and told him of that decision. The letter explained he had a right to review to the Independent Review Mechanism (IRM).
6. Mr X complained. He said the investigation was flawed and the Council had not presented the fostering panel with all the information it needed. The Council in June 2025 upheld his complaint. It said the initial investigation into the allegation was not thorough enough and had not considered the information it should have.

Analysis

7. The Council’s own complaint process upheld Mr X’s complaint about the initial safeguarding investigation. We are unlikely to achieve more.
8. Foster carers may approach the IRM about a decision to de-register. The review process is conducted by a panel, independent of the fostering service provider.  The IRM does not have the power to overturn a decision by the fostering service provider but it may make a fresh recommendation to the fostering provider on the carer’s suitability to foster a child or the terms of the approval. The Council must take account of its recommendation. 
9. The Council signposted Mr X to the IRM. They are a more suitable body than us to consider the foster panel’s decision. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to have used that process.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to achieve more than the Council’s own complaints’ procedure and the IRM was better placed to consider the foster panel’s decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman