Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s deregistration as a foster carer. This is because another body is better placed than the Ombudsman to do so.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council mishandled a safeguarding allegation and wrongly deregistered him as a foster carer. He says the process was unfair, relied on inaccurate information, and continued despite unresolved complaints. He wants reinstatement, an apology, compensation, and an independent review.

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. (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 the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

My assessment

5. There was a safeguarding allegation and police investigation raised against Mr X. Following this, the Council held an Allegations Against Staff and Volunteers (ASV) meeting and decided to deregister Mr X as a foster carer.
6. Mr X asked for details of the meeting, submitted a Subject Access Request (SAR), and requested that the Council paused the process while it processed his SAR.
7. Mr X later complained about the Council’s process, alleged regulatory breaches, and a conflict of interest. He says the process was unfair, relied on inaccurate information, and denied him a fair chance to respond.
8. The Council partly upheld Mr X’s complaint because of process and communication issues. It corrected a factual error regarding the time Mr X was on bail and identified learning points. However, it refused to review the safeguarding or deregistration decisions, explaining these were outside the scope of the complaints process, which it concluded has been followed correctly with multi-agency involvement. The decision to deregister Mr X was unanimously made by a panel of ten multi-disciplinary professionals.
9. The Council said the error about bail length, did not affect the outcome. It also refused Mr X’s request to appoint an external investigator, advising their investigator was impartial.
10. The Council said it could proceed with deregistration despite no further police action and did not need to pause for the SAR or complaint.
11. The Council has confirmed Mr X has appealed to the Independent Review Mechanism and is currently awaiting the panel hearing.
12. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is another body better placed to consider the substantive matter. Foster carers may ask the Independent Review Mechanism (IRM) to review a decision to recommend deregistration. While the IRM cannot overturn a decision to deregister, neither can the Ombudsman. The IRM is the body set up to consider such matters and is better placed than the Ombudsman to do so.
13. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue. We will not therefore investigate how the Council responded to Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because another body is better placed than the Ombudsman to do so.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman