Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about payment of an allowance for transporting his grandchildren while they were in foster care. This is because it is unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman could add to the response Mr X has already received or achieve anything more.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about the Council’s failure to pay an agreed allowance for transporting his grandchildren while they were in foster care.

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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the information he provided. I also gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on a draft statement before reaching a final decision on his complaint.

Back to top

What I found

4. In January 2019, Mr X’s grandchildren were removed from their parents and placed in the care of his daughter. Mr X says the Council agreed to pay him an enhanced allowance to transport his grandchildren to contact and other appointments. Mr X says that over a ten-month period the Council either failed to pay the allowance or paid the wrong amount. Mr X says the Council would often return his claims and refused to discuss his concerns. He says departments did not communicate with each other and the Council eventually owed him over one thousand pounds.
5. The Council has responded to complaints from Mr X. It said his daughter and her husband were the approved foster carers, and it was their responsibility to claim a mileage allowance. This is why the Council had not been able to discuss the claims with Mr X. The Council accepted there had been confusion about the agreed mileage rate and there was no written agreement. It therefore agreed to pay the enhanced rate and any outstanding claims Mr X had.
6. When we find a council has acted with fault, we look to put the person complaining back in the position they would have been were it not for the identified fault. But the Ombudsman does not investigate all the complaints we receive. We need to consider what more we could achieve for the person complaining.
7. The Council has responded to Mr X’s complaints and explained its position. Mr X says the Council has now paid the amount it owed him. I understand how frustrating the issue at the heart of Mr X’s complaint must have been. But if the Ombudsman were to investigate, it is difficult to see what we could add to the Council’s response, or what more we could achieve for Mr X. On balance, I do not therefore think an investigation by the Ombudsman is appropriate.

Back to top

Final decision

8. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because it is unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman could add to the response Mr X has already received or achieve anything more.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman