Summary: Mr and Mrs Y complained about the Council's handling of safeguarding concerns raised about their care of two foster children. Although the Council has already upheld part of the complaint, shortcomings in its complaint investigation meant the substantive concerns were not fully addressed. We found fault in the Council's handling of the safeguarding process and complaint which caused uncertainty and distress. The Council will make a symbolic payment and invite Mr and Mrs Y to provide a written account to be placed on the Council’s records.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs Y complain the Council removed foster children from their care without notice and failed to hold a placement stability or disruption meeting.
2. They say the Council did not carry out the Section 47 investigation in line with policy or guidance, as it did not seek or record their views, discuss the allegations with them, or take account of their history as foster carers.
3. They also say the Council did not explain how the threshold for significant harm was met or its decision making, and that its actions were inappropriate, caused distress, and damaged their professional reputation and confidence.
4. Despite the significance of the claimed injustice, they say the Council has not offered a suitable remedy.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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)
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. I have not investigated the actions of the independent fostering agency. The Stage 3 panel concluded that responsibility for arranging a placement stability or disruption meeting rested with the agency rather than the Council, and I have seen no evidence to suggest that conclusion was incorrect. As the Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints about independent fostering agencies, I have not considered this aspect of the complaint and have instead focused on the Council’s actions.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered evidence provided by Mr and Mrs Y and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. Mr and Mrs Y 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

What should happen

11. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. The accompanying statutory guidance ‘Getting the Best from Complaints’ explains councils’ responsibilities in more detail. We also published practitioner guidance on the procedures, setting out our expectations.
12. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond. If a complainant is not happy with a council’s stage one response, they can ask that it is considered at stage two. At this stage of the procedure, councils appoint an investigating officer (IO) to look into the complaint and an independent person (IP) who is responsible for overseeing the investigation and ensuring its independence.
13. Following the investigation, a senior manager (the adjudicating officer) at the council should carry out an adjudication. The officer considers the IO report and any report from the IP. They decide what the council’s response to the complaint will be, including what action it will take. The adjudicating officer should then write to the complainant with a copy of the investigation report, any report from the independent person and the adjudication response.
14. The whole stage two process should be completed within 25 working days but guidance allows an extension for up to 65 working days where needed.
15. If a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of the stage two investigation, they can ask for a stage three review by an independent panel. The council must hold the panel within 30 working days of the date of request, and then issue a final response within 20 working days of the panel hearing.
16. The statutory children’s complaints procedure was set up to provide children, young people and those involved in their welfare with access to an independent, thorough and prompt response to their concerns. Because of this, if a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it.
17. However, we may look at whether there were any flaws in the stage two investigation or stage three review panel that could call the findings into question. We may also consider whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation and review panel, and whether it has completed any recommendations without delay.

The statutory children’s complaints investigation of Mr & Mrs Y’s complaint

18. Mr and Mrs Y were foster carers approved and managed by an independent fostering agency. They complained about the Council’s handling of safeguarding concerns regarding their two foster children, including the decision to remove the children from their placement and how the Council investigated those concerns.
19. The Stage 2 investigator (IO) looked at records and interviewed selected staff. Because the children involved did not consent to sharing their information, the IO’s report was limited in detail. In summary, the IO made the following findings.
• Complaint 1 – Mr and Mrs Y complained the Council did not arrange a disruption meeting before arranging the removal of the children. The IO did not uphold this complaint because they found the children were removed for safeguarding reasons, based on serious concerns raised. The IO concluded the Council took the decision quickly but within policy guidelines and with senior oversight, including the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO).
• Complaint 2 – Mr and Mrs Y complained the Council did not complete the Section 47 investigation properly as they did not have the opportunity to give their views. The IO did not uphold the complaint. Whilst they accepted the Council did not seek the foster carers’ views, the IO said this was based on advice linked to the safeguarding process and LADO. The IO said the Council’s focus was on the children, and the Council followed guidance.
• Complaint 3 – Mr and Mrs Y said the Council failed to consider their history of being good foster carers. The IO did not uphold this complaint. They said, even if Mr and Mrs Y had a good history, this does not outweigh safeguarding concerns.
• Complaint 4 – Mr and Mrs Y said the Council did not explain the ‘significant harm’ threshold. The IO made no finding because responsibility for explaining this partly sat with the fostering agency, not just the Council.
• Complaint 5 – Mr and Mrs Y complained the Council’s actions impacted on their reputation and confidence as foster carers. The IO did not uphold this complaint. They accepted the situation caused distress to Mr and Mrs Y, ultimately affecting their confidence. But it said the Council’s actions were justified in response to safeguarding concerns.
• Complaint 6 – Mr and Mrs Y complained the Council acted unethically, made false claims and invalidated the Section 47. The IO did not uphold this complaint because there was no evidence to show the Council had acted dishonestly or misled others.
• Complaint 7 – Mr and Mrs Y said the Council’s actions caused harm to their child. The IO did not uphold this complaint. They recognised the situation had caused distress to family members but that this was not due to any fault in the way the Council acted.
20. Dissatisfied with the outcome of the IO’s investigation, Mr and Mrs Y asked the Council to progress their complaint to the third and final stage of the investigation process.
21. The Stage 3 panel met to consider the complaint and review whether the Stage 2 investigation was thorough and reasonable. The panel did not reinvestigate the complaint.
22. The Stage 3 Panel made several observations about the Stage 2 investigation. These included:
• The report did not clearly explain how it reached its conclusions.
• Some findings were too brief and lacked detail.
• It was not clear who the IO interviewed and who they did not, and the reasons for any exclusions.
• The report did not clearly show what policies or procedures were followed.
• Key issues, such as the timing of events, were missed or not discussed.
• The investigation was too narrowly focused on one issue.
• The IO relied heavily on the Council’s account without fully testing the evidence
• The investigation did not include direct evidence from key sources (e.g. the LADO) despite relying on their advice.
• Overall, the report lacked enough detail and transparency to show it was thorough.
23. After some discussion, the panel agreed upon a central issue: that Mr and Mrs Y were not involved in the process involving the removal of their two foster children. Consequently, they changed the finding for Complaint 2 from not upheld to upheld because:
• The Council did not seek Mr and Mrs Y’s views at any stage of the process, which was poor practice; and
• It was unclear whether the Council followed its own procedures properly.
24. The panel did not make any changes to the other complaint outcomes but noted for Complaint 1 the issue of a placement stability/disruption meeting fell within the remit of the fostering agency.
25. Dissatisfied with the outcome, Mr and Mrs Y complained to us.

Was there fault causing injustice in the actions of the Council

26. The Stage 3 panel identified some shortcomings in the Stage 2 investigation. However, it did not fully remedy those shortcomings. I have therefore considered those issues below, along with the Council’s overall handling of Mr and Mrs Y’s complaint.

Removal of the children from the placement

27. The Council's procedures allow for immediate protective action, including removing children from a foster placement on the same day concerns are identified, where it considers there is a safeguarding risk. The evidence shows the Council considered the concerns sufficiently serious to warrant immediate action and sought advice from relevant safeguarding professionals.
28. I do not find fault in the Council’s decision to take immediate protective action while safeguarding concerns were considered. Safeguarding considerations must take priority where a council believes a child may be at risk. This is a matter of professional judgement which the Ombudsman cannot question in the absence of procedural fault which undermines that judgement.
29. However, the Council still needed to ensure the subsequent safeguarding and allegation management process was conducted in accordance with its procedures and statutory guidance. As explained below, I have found fault in the way the Council carried out those processes after the children left the placement.

The Council's handling of the Section 47 enquiries

30. The Council's procedures, ‘Managing Concerns, Complaints and Allegations against Foster Carers, including Historical Allegations’, which are aligned with ‘Working Together to Safeguard Children’, make clear the primary purpose of Section 47 enquiries and allegation management procedures is to safeguard children.
31. However, they also recognise the importance of involving foster carers appropriately in the process unless there is a good reason why this would place a child at risk. The Council's procedures say foster carers should normally be informed of concerns as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after the information is received.
32. I have seen no evidence the Council kept its decision not to disclose the allegations under review. While there may be circumstances where it is appropriate not to discuss allegations with foster carers immediately, the Council should have reconsidered whether disclosure was appropriate once the children had moved placement and any immediate risk had reduced. The evidence available does not show that this happened.
33. The Council's explanation of the Section 47 process during its complaint investigation was incomplete. This is because the Council viewed the enquiries mainly as a process for recording and prioritising the children's accounts. However, Section 47 enquiries are intended to gather and evaluate relevant information to decide whether a child has suffered, or is at risk of suffering, significant harm. Foster carers are likely to hold relevant information to help that assessment even where they do not hold parental responsibility.
34. The Council accepts it did not follow the correct process when considering the concerns about Mr and Mrs Y. It did not seek their views or provide an opportunity to contribute information relevant to the safeguarding enquiries. The Stage 3 panel also concluded this was poor practice and upheld this part of the complaint.
35. Furthermore, the Council repeatedly relied on advice from the LADO and referred to the fostering agency's role. However, neither removed the Council's responsibility to ensure it carried out its own safeguarding enquiries lawfully, proportionately and in accordance with statutory guidance. For these reasons, I find fault in the way the Council carried out and reviewed the Section 47 process. This caused injustice to Mr and Mrs Y.

Decision making and consideration of relevant information

36. Mr and Mrs Y say the Council failed to explain how it decided there was evidence of significant harm and failed to take account of their history as foster carers.
37. I recognise there were limits on the information the Council could share while safeguarding enquiries were continuing. However, the Council should have been able to explain its decision-making and show how it satisfied itself that immediate safeguarding action and subsequent enquiries were necessary.
38. The Council's complaint responses did not adequately explain this decision-making process. Nor did they clearly explain what information the Council had considered or opted not to consider. This included any information which Mr and Mrs Y may have been able to provide as experienced foster carers at the centre of the allegations made.
39. However, I do not consider Mr and Mrs Y's previous fostering history meant the Council could not act on safeguarding concerns. Councils must always assess safeguarding concerns on their individual merits. With that said, and as explained above, their experience and knowledge of the children were potentially relevant matters which the Council should have considered as part of a thorough enquiry process. Because the Council did not seek their views, it lost the opportunity to consider that information. This is fault which caused injustice to Mr and Mrs Y.

Complaint handling

40. The Stage 3 panel identified significant faults in the Stage 2 investigation. It found the investigation lacked sufficient detail, did not clearly explain how conclusions had been reached, failed to show what evidence had been considered, and did not properly explore whether relevant procedures had been followed. The panel also found the investigation relied too heavily on the Council's own account and lacked transparency.
41. While the Stage 3 panel addressed some of these flaws and upheld part of the complaint, it did not fully resolve the uncertainty arising from the earlier investigation. I therefore find fault in the Council's complaint handling.

Injustice

42. I cannot say the result of the safeguarding process would have been different if the Council had acted without fault. The Council may still have decided the children should be removed from the placement and may still have reached the same safeguarding conclusions. Furthermore, irrespective of the fault, Mr and Mrs Y may still have decided to resign as foster carers.
43. However, because the Council did not follow the correct procedure, Mr and Mrs Y were denied the opportunity to provide information relevant to the enquiries. They are now left with uncertainty about whether the Council considered all relevant information during the decision making process. The fault also caused avoidable frustration, distress and time and trouble when Mr and Mrs Y pursued their complaint through the Council's complaint procedure and later to the Ombudsman. The Council should take action to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Action

44. To remedy the injustice caused by fault, within four weeks of our final decision the Council will take the following action.
• Invite Mr and Mrs Y to provide a written account (subject to any suitable length limits). If Mr and Mrs Y choose to accept this invitation, the Council should place their account on the relevant fostering and safeguarding records so there is a complete record of Mr and Mrs Y’s position alongside the information already held.
• Make a symbolic payment to Mr and Mrs Y of £500 in recognition of the uncertainty, frustration, distress, and time and trouble caused by the Council's failure to properly involve them in the safeguarding process and the shortcomings in its complaint handling.
45. We have decided not to recommend a service improvement remedy because, following its own investigation, the Council agreed to remind staff to follow its allegation management policy through Children's Services staff briefings and service email bulletins. We do not therefore recommend anything further.
46. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the actions in paragraph 44.

Back to top

Decision

47. I find fault causing injustice. The Council will complete the agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman