Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the end of his fostering career because we could not add to the Council’s response, and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. We cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

The complaint

1. Mr X was a foster carer for the Council. There was an incident in 2023 involving Mr X and one of the children he fostered. The LADO and the Police were involved. The Council decided to remove the children and de-register Mr X.
2. I understand Mr X resigned as a foster carer.
3. Mr X complained to the Council about its handling of the incident. He complained about the support he received before and after the incident. He set out his concerns in detail.
4. The Council did not uphold his complaints about its handling of the incident or the support he received before and after the incident. The Council accepted a social worker may have been slow to respond to Mr X’s emails at times and apologised.
5. Mr X complained to us that social workers lied to the Council’s investigator to protect their reputation. He gave one example which concerns a social worker he says “begged” him to take a child back after a previous incident.
6. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s view that the fact he was not prosecuted following the incident does not mean that he did not commit a crime.
7. He wants the Council to apologise and pay compensation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

8. 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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered information provided by Mr X.
10. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

11. The Council provided a detailed response to Mr X’s complaint. I have not repeated the details here to ensure Mr X’s anonymity.
12. The Council’s investigation was thorough and balanced.
13. There is nothing we could add by further investigation.
14. Mr X alleges that a social worker lied to the investigator and gave an example. The investigator addressed the matter in his report. Further investigation of the example he gave would not lead to a different outcome.
15. Mr X was not prosecuted because the victim declined to cooperate. He has not been convicted of a crime in relation to the incident. The Council said the fact Mr X was not prosecuted does not mean that no crime was committed. There is no fault in the Council’s view. We cannot question Council views reached without fault.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint as we could not add to the Council’s response, and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. We cannot, therefore, achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman