Summary: The Council was at fault for not following the correct processes when it informed Mr and Mrs X of the concerns it had regarding them as foster carers. The Council was also at fault for its poor record keeping and for failing to retain key documents. It did not hold an exit interview when Mr and Mrs X stopped fostering with the Council which was also fault. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mr and Mrs X for the avoidable frustration and uncertainty caused by its faults.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X complained about the way the Council supported them as foster carers. In particular they complained the Council:
1. Shared allegations about them with their independent fostering agency without informing them of these concerns.
2. Failed to record and communicate new and important information as a result of which their foster children’s placement with them ended.
3. Failed to respond to requests for documents and a subject access request in a timely manner.
4. Did not hold an exit interview.
2. Mr and Mrs X said the Council’s actions impacted their reputation as foster carers, caused stress, upset and breakdown in professional relationships.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
6. 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(1), as amended)
7. 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

8. 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 the complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
9. I have not investigated Mr and Mrs X’s complaint that the Council failed to respond to the subject access request they made. This is because it is reasonable to expect them to refer their data complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) which is the appropriate body to look at such complaints.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I spoke to Mr and Mrs X about their complaint and considered the evidence they provided.
11. I considered evidence provided by the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
12. Mr and Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

13. Children who are looked after by a council may be placed in foster care. Councils have their own foster carers and may also use foster carers from private fostering agencies. Councils may only place children with approved foster carers. 
14. Councils have statutory duties to children in care to promote and safeguard their welfare. The ‘Care, Planning and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010’ and guidance sets out how councils should manage and arrange placements.
15. When children are in foster care, the foster carers will have their own fostering social worker, who is responsible for supporting and assessing their care. The children will have their own social worker. Both social workers should work closely together.

National Minimum Fostering Standards

16. Standards of care in fostering refer to the expected level of care and professional conduct from foster carers and fostering services, outlined in national standards and regulations to ensure the child's welfare is prioritised.
17. Standard 22 (Handling allegations and suspicions of harm) states:

• Allegations against those working with children are reported by the fostering service to the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO). This includes allegations that on the face of it may appear relatively insignificant or that have also been reported directly to the police or Children and Family Services. The LADO is the person responsible for managing and overseeing investigations into allegations that somebody who works with children has behaved in a way that may pose a risk to children.
• Fostering service must ensure that a clear distinction is made between investigation into allegations of harm and discussions over standards of care. Investigations which find no evidence of harm should not become procedures looking into poor standards of care – these should be treated separately. It will be a matter of professional judgement for the social worker, based on their knowledge of the child and carer, that the child’s welfare is not being adequately safeguarded.
• A clear and comprehensive summary of allegations, including details of how it was followed up and resolved, and a record of any action taken and decisions reached, are kept on the person’s file with a copy provided to them as soon as the investigation concludes. The information is retained on the confidential file, even after someone leaves the organisation.
• As soon as possible after an investigation, their approval as suitable to foster is reviewed.
• Investigations are handled fairly, quickly, and consistently in a way that provides effective protection for the child while supporting the person subject of the allegation.

18. The ‘Fostering Minimum Standards’ say that children should not normally be moved if the foster carers are willing to care for them unless there is an immediate risk of significant harm, requiring immediate removal.
19. Standard 26 (Records) states records must clear and up to date on the fostering service’s files including on case files related to foster carers.

What happened

20. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
21. Mr and Mrs X were Council foster carers. In October 2024 the Council held a foster carer review and recorded that Mr and Mrs X had decided they were leaving the Council and moving to an Independent Fostering Agency (IFA). This process can take several months.
22. A couple of months after this meeting, the Council placed a group of siblings with Mr and Mrs X.
23. The Council’s social worker for the children conducted visits to Mr and Mrs X home in December 2024 and January 2025. They noted Mr X used negative language to describe one child’s behaviour and the social worker explained why his comment was wrong.
24. In late December 2024 Mr and Mrs X’s foster carer supervising social worker visited them. The supervising social worker noted that one of the children expressed their wish to leave Mr and Mrs X’s care.
25. In early January 2025 the supervising social worker offered a supervision meeting to Mr and Mrs X. The notes of this meeting were not uploaded to its system.
26. In late January 2025 the Council arranged a joint meeting with Mr and Mrs X to discuss issues raised by the children’s social worker. Mr X did not attend this meeting as he was upset about there being issues to be raised.
27. The children’s social worker told the meeting they were concerned:
• a child had asked to leave their placement when they had not done so in any previous placements.
• Mr and Mrs X had not sought their views, or the children’s mother, before changing the children’s nursery placement. Mrs X said in previous placements the Council had allowed them to make such decisions themselves. The children’s social worker reiterated that they wanted to be included in all decision-making regarding appointments, school and alike.

• about the language Mr X used to describe on child’s behavior and the way he had communicated with the children’s mother during family time.
• The children told them they used a ‘naughty step’ which Mrs X denied.

28. The children’s social worker stated that regular care team meetings were necessary to support Mr and Mrs X in making decisions.
29. The Council records showed that a couple of days after the meeting it called the IFA that Mr and Mrs X were moving to, to say that the children’s social worker had raised concerns about the foster carers and that they were worried about Mr and Mrs X transferring to the IFA with these children still in their care. The IFA asked for further details of the concerns to be provided in writing and the Council agreed to send this. The Council records do not show if this was done.
30. The Council also emailed Mr and Mrs X the same day detailing the concerns raised by the children’s social worker in relation to Mr X and stating that it had contacted the IFA to share these concerns. It wanted to meet with both Mr and Mrs X to discuss the concerns and agree to a plan moving forward before any transfer meeting.
31. In late January 2025 Mr and Mrs X wrote to the Council to give 28 days’ notice to end the foster placement of the children.
32. Mr and Mrs X also complained to the Council about:

• sweeping statements and judgmental comments made by social workers to the IFA, giving less importance to Mr and Mrs X’s views. Mr X pointed out the Council still wanted the children to remain in their care despite the concerns raised.
• the Council sending emails containing its concerns about Mr X’s behavior with professionals and other matters at unsuitable times before the weekend which meant Mr and Mrs X had no one to contact over the weekend for clarification or support which caused anxiety.
• the way the social worker shared concerns internally and with the IFA but without sharing these with them or seeking their clarification and consent.

33. Notes of a telephone call between Mr X and the Council’s fostering team in February 2025 stated he was unhappy about the addendum that he had received from the IFA as it noted concerns about them raised by the children’s social worker. The notes of this conversation showed that the Council discussed the concerns raised with Mr X. It recorded that Mr X intended to challenge the comments in the IFA’s addendum in writing and asked for a joint meeting to discuss the concerns. The Council said it would try to arrange a meeting. The Council case notes submitted to us in response to our enquiries do not show if this meeting with Mr and Mrs X and the IFA was held.
34. Notes of a telephone call in mid-February 2025 stated that the the supervising social worker asked Mr and Mrs X if they would consider extending the children’s placement as no foster placement could take all the siblings. Mr X said that the concerns the Council had raised had not been addressed so he would want those concerns withdrawn if the Council wanted them to keep the children in placement. The notes also stated that Mr and Mrs were due to attend the panel soon and that the Agency Decision Maker (ADM) decision regarding their transfer to IFA would be made in about 10 days.
35. Soon after Mr and Mrs X emailed the Council to say for their own wellbeing, they were unable to keep the children beyond the 28-day notice period (end of February 2025). Records showed that the children did not leave Mr and Mrs X’s care then and stayed beyond that date.
36. In late March 2025 the Council held a management case supervision meeting. The records showed that the children’s social worker had shared concerns which the supervising fostering social worker agreed with. The concerns were those raised previously and shared at the meeting in January 2025, and those raised after that meeting. The new concerns included matters relating to a child’s skin condition, oral hygiene, failure to make the children available for an adoption open day and not sharing daily records with the supervising social worker. The notes recorded that Mr and Mrs X were leaving the Council and going to IFA and that if they were not leaving, the supervising social worker would ask the panel to review their approval as Council foster carers. It also noted that it would share the concerns with the IFA.
37. In late June 2025 the Council issued a stage one complaint response. It explained concerns were shared with the IFA verbally in a joint meeting and that IFA took the minutes of the meeting and it did not have a copy. The Council said the concerns were also in case supervision notes between the supervising social worker and their team manager and supervision record.
38. The Council addressed Mr X’s other concerns:

• It would learn from their complaint about contact from the Council late in the day or before weekends.
• Mr X had served a 28-day notice for the placement at the end of January 2025 and it was working to find a new placement for the children from that date onwards. The Council apologised and said that if Mr and Mrs X had changed their decision about ending the placement then this was not communicated with the children’s social worker, which meant it was under the impression that Mr X was aware of its continuing plan for it to move the children.
• It apologised for not offering Mr and Mrs X an exit interview on leaving its fostering service. It said this could have been due to changes in team and management structure and it would learn from this.
• the children’s social worker who offered their apologies if the way in which they communicated any worries negatively impacted Mr and Mrs X.
• It had not received Mr X’s response to the written concerns raised with the IFA but would add it to their file when it received this.
• Its investigation had shown a lack of communication between departments and recording issues – it said that information had not been fed back in a timely manner and recorded which caused issues and a breakdown in relationship. It said it had recognised that multi-agency learning was needed, especially when considering concerns raised.

39. Mr and Mrs X escalated their complaint and in late July 2025 the Council issued a stage two complaint response:

• Although the Council had apologised at stage one for not sharing copies of the foster carer supervisions since December 2024; the social worker was still absent from work and that the outstanding copies would be sent once they returned. (The Council has since told us that the supervising social worker has left the Council and therefore it cannot provide the outstanding documents.)
• There were discrepancies in views as to whether information was shared transparently. It said that while meetings took place, there were gaps in its recording due to the supervising social worker’s absence from end of March 2025. It shared information between relevant professionals, but it did not have evidence that information was also shared with Mr and Mrs X in a timely manner. It said Mr and Mrs X could ask IFA to send a copy of the minutes of the relevant meeting.
• There were no records that showed that Mr and Mrs X had told their supervising social worker that they wished to continue to care for the children after they had served notice to end the children’s placement. Due to the supervising social worker’s absence it was unable to verify whether Mr and Mrs X had told the social worker of the change in their decision.
• It apologised for the impact on Mr and Mrs X and their family.

40. Unhappy with the outcome, Mr and Mrs X complained to us and they also transferred to the IFA.
41. In response to our enquiries the Council said:

• Concerns about Mr and Mrs X as foster carers working with children were not reported to the LADO.
• It had since taken various steps to improve its recording practices and had introduced a robust process to ensure exit interviews are offered to foster carers leaving its service.

Analysis

Shared allegations about Mr and Mrs X with their independent fostering agency without informing them of these concerns

42. It is not our role to investigate allegations about Council foster carers to decide if they are true or not. That is the role of the Council.
43. The Council’s policy is to follow the Fostering Services: National Minimum Standards. The National Minimum Standards for dealing with allegations about foster carers or concerns about the standard of their care are noted in Standard 22. In this case there is no evidence the Council followed this Standard which was fault:
• It did not raise its concerns with the LADO to allow them to determine if these were allegations of harm or standard of care.
• As a fostering service, it should have ensured it made a clear distinction between investigations into allegations of harm and discussions over standards of care. There is nothing in the records or in documents sent to Mr and Mrs X to show this distinction and I am left unclear about any decision it made regarding this distinction and its rationale behind that decision.
44. This leaves Mr and Mrs X with uncertainty over whether the Council followed the proper procedures when it raised concerns about them.
45. Mr X said the Council did not notify them of the concerns first or give them an opportunity to clarify those concerns before informing the IFA. The Council called a meeting with Mr and Mrs X to share its concerns in January 2025. While Mr X decided not to attend this meeting, Mrs X attended and was made aware of the concerns the Council had at the time and could share Mr and Mrs X’s views on the allegations or concerns. I am satisfied they were made aware of the concerns.
46. Records show the Council informed the Independent Fostering Agency (IFA) by telephone a couple of days after the meeting in January 2025 – it was recorded that the Council did not want the children to transfer with Mr and Mrs X to the IFA. I note that, at that time, Mr and Mrs X had not been to panel or had a decision from the ADM about their transfer to the IFA.
47. I acknowledge that the Council had a duty to satisfy itself that the welfare of the children was safeguarded and promoted, however, from the evidence seen, the Council did not follow the procedure set out in the National Minimum Standards; the children were not imminently moving with Mr and Mrs X and the children’s social worker appeared to be planning to work on some of the concerns with Mr and Mrs X. As the Council failed to record why it needed to tell the IFA of the concerns at that stage, this was fault. This failure to follow procedure caused Mr and Mrs X uncertainty as to whether notifying the IFA was required at that time.

Record keeping and communication

48. The Council’s records of Mr and Mrs X’s fostering case files were poor or absent. This was fault. In line with the National Minimum Fostering Standards, Standard 26, the Council should have maintained detailed written records of all its substantive actions, decisions, reasons for those decisions and communications with all relevant parties regarding allegations about Mr and Mrs X as foster carers.
49. While Mr and Mrs X were made aware of the allegations against them through meetings and discussion, from the records it is unclear what written communication they had from the Council in respect to the investigation of those allegations as they continued to foster the children. The Council’s poor records of Mr and Mrs X’s fostering case files and its communication was fault that caused Mr and Mrs X avoidable frustration and uncertainty.
50. The Council should have also recorded and sent supervision meeting notes to Mr and Mrs X in a timely manner. It did not at the time and now cannot due to the supervising social working not uploading them before taking sick leave and then leaving the Council. This failure to keep accurate records was fault and this has added to Mr and Mrs X’s frustration.
51. Mr and Mrs X said they told their supervising social worker that they would like to continue caring for the children after they served notice on the placement. However, the Council has no record of that conversation and it is unable to verify this information with the supervising social worker. I cannot say, even on the balance of probabilities, whether the placement would have continued as is or ended if the Council had properly recorded and considered this information, especially if their suitability as foster carers may have been taken back to the Council’s panel for review. Therefore, the Council’s fault has not caused Mr and Mrs X an injustice beyond uncertainty.
52. The Council also accepted it did not complete an exit interview with Mr and Mrs X when they stopped fostering. An exit interview is best practice when a foster carer leaves its service. The Council has accepted this was fault. It was also a missed learning opportunity for it to understand their experience and improve its support. It has apologised to Mr and Mrs X and this was sufficient to remedy any injustice they were caused as a result of that fault.

Back to top

Action

53. Within one of this decision the Council will apologise and pay Mr and Mrs X £500 for the avoidable frustration and uncertainty caused by its poor handling of their fostering case. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council will consider this guidance in making the apology.
54. Within one month of this decision the Council will also provide evidence of the service improvements it told us it has put in place since the events in this complaint. We want to see evidence of:
1. it now offers exit interviews to foster carers who leave its service; and
2. its improved record keeping processes for foster carers.
55. The Council with provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

56. I found fault causing injustice and the Council agreed actions to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman