Summary: the Council delayed recognising Miss B’s sister’s children were looked after children which delayed provision of financial support to the family between January and July 2018. The Council also delayed considering Miss B’s complaint at stage two. Those failures put an unreasonable financial burden on the family and created significant stress. A financial payment to three family members and training for officers is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss B, complained on behalf of herself, her brother/sister-in-law and mother about how the Council dealt with their family. Miss B complained the Council:
• delayed recognising her sister’s children were looked after children which delayed provision of financial support to the family; and
• delayed considering her complaint at stage two.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a Council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Miss B's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• considered Miss B’s comments on my draft decision; and
• considered the Council’s comments on my draft decision.
5. Under the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), we will share this decision with Ofsted.

Back to top

What I found

6. Miss B’s sister has five children. Those children were known to social services at the time Miss B’s sister went into jail. At that point the family made arrangements to care for the children. Initially Miss B agreed to care for two of her sister’s children with her mother taking one of the other children. The two remaining children went to live with Miss B’s brother. Miss B works part-time and has her own children to look after. The arrangement became difficult for her to manage and one of the children went to live with her brother/sister-in-law. I understand the Council treated this as a private arrangement and only made limited payments to the family until June 2018.
7. Between January 2018 and June 2018 the Council continued to have involvement in the arrangements for the children. That included regular visits to the children and meetings. The Council also obtained a written agreement from Miss B, her brother/sister-in-law and her mother in relation to how the family would look after the children. In June 2018 the Council conceded it should have treated the children as looked after children from the point at which it signed the agreement with the various family members. That was January 2018. The Council has given the family members a regulation 24 allowance, which reflects their status as temporary foster carers for the children. The Council has backdated that allowance to January 2018. The Council has also upheld Miss B’s complaint and offered her £750 compensation.

Complaint chronology

8. Miss B complained to the Council on 9 March 2018. The Council responded to the complaint on 20 March. On 22 March Miss B asked for the Council to move the complaint to stage two. The Council confirmed it had done that on 3 April and told Miss B about the timescale for completing the investigation, which could extend to 65 working days.
9. The Council appointed an investigating officer 1 May. The investigating officer met with Miss B on 24 May. However, the Council put the complaint investigation on hold in June due to the court proceedings in relation to the children. Those court proceedings completed in July and Miss B asked the Council to move forward with her complaint.
10. An investigating officer met with Miss B again on 13 September. The Council apologised for delays on 25 October and 3 December. The investigating officer completed the investigation on 20 December and provided a report to the Council for adjudication. The Council sent Miss B a copy of that report on 6 February 2019.

The Council’s information booklet on family and friends carers

11. The Council’s information booklet for family and friends carers says a child placed by the local authority with a family member, friend or connected person is a looked after child. It says a looked after child can only be placed with family, friends or connected person if that person has been approved as a foster carer or granted temporary approval.
12. The booklet says when the local authority is made aware of a private fostering arrangement it has a duty to make sure the child is safe and their needs are being met. That involves a visit to assess it is satisfactory and statutory checks. Thereafter the Council will undertake visits every six weeks in the first year and once every 12 weeks in subsequent years until the child is 16. It records the child is not looked after and the responsibility to financially maintain the child remains with the parent.
13. The information booklet says any relative, friend or connected person with whom a child is to be immediately placed has to be considered for temporary approval as a foster carer. It says temporary approval is for 16 weeks only. If the placement is needed for longer than 16 weeks the Council needs to carry out a full family and friends assessment.
14. The information booklet says the Council has a scheme of payments to those families who qualify. It says a fair core allowance should be set for all placement types. It says this is the amount the Council has agreed is the sum required to bring up a child. It records the Council has adopted the national core allowance figure recommended by Government. It says this will ensure there is no prejudice to meeting the child’s needs with the type of order made.
15. The information booklet says payments to those other than local authority foster carers, unless statutorily prescribed, are discretionary and subject to means testing.

Analysis

16. The Council accepts it delayed recognising the children as looked after children, although it considers the initial arrangements were private family arrangements. I do not criticise the Council for taking that view initially, having considered the notes of the first meeting with the family. It is clear from those notes the family had made the arrangements for the children before the Council became aware of the situation. However, the Council accepts it should have identified the children became looked after from 24 January 2018 when family members entered into a written agreement. As part of that written agreement the Council’s level of involvement increased. I am concerned the Council did not recognise that at the time. I also consider there were further opportunities for the Council to correct the misunderstanding between January 2018 and June 2018. In particular, I would have expected supervision sessions with the relevant social workers to have identified the change in status. The initial family and friends care assessment was also an opportunity for the Council to correct its understanding. The Council again missed an opportunity to review its position when it considered Miss B’s stage one complaint. Failure to identify the change in status in January 2018 and delay amending the status until June 2018 is fault.
17. The evidence I have seen satisfies me fault by the Council meant Miss B, her brother/sister-in-law and mother did not receive the financial assistance they were entitled to until June/July 2018. It is clear from Miss B’s description this had a significant impact on family members. That is because they were expected to cover the costs of supporting the additional children when they should have received some financial support from the Council. I understand the Council has now backdated the allowance to all three family members and has offered Miss B £750 to reflect that impact. I consider that a suitable remedy and in line with what the Ombudsman would normally recommend, taking into account the period of time involved and the impact on Miss B.
18. It is not clear to me whether the Council has considered a similar payment to Miss B’s brother/sister-in-law and mother. Having considered the documentary evidence, it is clear there is regular communication between Miss B and the Council about the impact caring for her sister’s children was having on her. Given Miss B is a single parent to her own children and worked part-time I consider it likely the most significant impact of caring for the children is likely to have been experienced by Miss B. However, there is also reference in the documentary evidence to the impact on Miss B’s brother and sister-in-law who, as I understand it, had to give up work temporarily to look after the children. I am therefore satisfied they are likely to have experienced a similar financial impact. For Miss B’s mother, I note she is in receipt of benefits and was looking after a baby. Again, I consider it likely the financial impact on her has also been difficult to manage. In those circumstances I recommended the Council pay Miss B’s brother/sister-in-law and her mother £750 each. I also recommended the Council provide further training to social workers and their managers on how to identify a private care arrangement and when a private care arrangement changes to regulation 24 arrangement so this situation does not arise again. The Council has agreed to those recommendations.
19. For Miss B the Council also delayed dealing with her stage two complaint. I do not criticise the Council for putting consideration of that complaint on hold pending the outcome of the court proceedings. However, court proceedings ended in July 2018. From that point the Council had up to 65 working days to respond to the stage two investigation. The Council did not meet that timescale given it did not send the stage two report to Miss B until 6 February 2019. That is significantly outside the 65 day timescale. That is fault. Given that delay and the fact Miss B had to chase the Council for a response I recommended the Council pay Miss B £250 on top of the £750 it had offered to reflect the time and trouble she had to go to in pursuing her complaint. The Council has agreed to that recommendation.

Back to top

Agreed action

20. The Council has made retrospective payments to Miss B, her brother/sister-in-law and her mother. The Council has also offered Miss B £750 to reflect the delays.
21. In addition to that remedy the Council has agreed to, within one month of my decision:
• pay Miss B an additional £250 to reflect the delay dealing with her complaint and the time and trouble she had to go to (along with the £750 already offered if it has not already done so);
• pay Miss B’s brother/sister-in-law £750 to reflect the financial impact of not having suitable financial support in place until July 2018;
• pay Miss B’s mother £750 to reflect the financial impact of not having suitable financial support in place until July 2018; and
• carry out further training for social workers and managers on regulation 24 processes and how to recognise when a child becomes looked after when a private arrangement becomes more formalised.

Back to top

Final decision

I have completed my investigation and uphold the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman