Kent County Council (21 004 214)

Category : Children's care services > Friends and family carers

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 02 Mar 2022

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr F complains the Council failed to provide proper support after he agreed to be a supported homes host for a looked after child. The Council has accepted there was fault. It has agreed to make a payment to Mr F to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

  1. Mr F complains the Council failed to provide proper support after he agreed to be a supported homes host for a looked after child. In particular he complains the Council:
    • Delayed assessing him as a supported homes host and connected person foster carer.
    • Failed to provide training or support, including when Mr J assaulted him.
    • Failed to provide financial support.
    • Delayed removing Mr J after he had been abusive to Mr F in January 2021.
  2. Mr F says as a result of the lack of support Mr J’s behaviour deteriorated, he was abusive and damaged his home and the placement broke down. This has caused Mr F distress and for him to no longer have contact with Mr J.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  3. 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

How I considered this complaint

  1. I spoke to Mr F about his complaint and considered the information he sent and the Council’s response to my enquiries.
  2. Mr F and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Looked after children

  1. A looked after child is any child who is subject to a care order or accommodated away from their family by a local authority under section 20 of Children Act 1989. When a child needs to be accommodated, the law says councils should consider placing them with family or friends first; such carers are known as "connected persons". The council carries out viability assessments of connected person foster carers and if approved the carer is entitled to weekly fostering payments.
  2. When a young person turns 18, they are no longer a looked after child and become a care leaver. Councils are not required to accommodate care leavers but have a duty to provide support up to the age of 21 (or up to 25 if in further education). This includes providing a personal advisor and a pathway plan.

Supported homes

  1. The Council has a supported homes service to provide accommodation for older children in care (aged 16/17 years) and care leavers aged up to 25. Young people are given their own room in a family home and support by the adult or adults that live in the home, known as “hosts”. In 2020 the Council commissioned this service from an external provider. It started to provide it itself from January 2021.
  2. People who wish to become a supported homes host can apply to the Council. It will carry out checks, visit the host’s home and prepare an assessment for approval by a panel. The Council says it aims to complete this process within four months.
  3. The Council provides support and training for supported homes hosts. It also pays £150 per week for providing a young person with accommodation and support and £70 per week rent for young people aged 16 and 17 who are not in receipt of benefit. For young people 18 years and over, who will be in receipt of Universal Credit, the rent is according to the local authority housing rate based on one bedroom accommodation. The young person is asked to pay £10 per week towards utilities and may pay £20 per week towards food, if the host agrees to cook for the young person.

What happened

  1. Mr J was seventeen years old in 2020. He was looked after by the Council and was living in a placement. Mr J could have challenging behaviour. In June 2020 the placement started to break down and Mr J went to stay with Mr F. From then until October 2020, Mr F says Mr J stayed with him, although he occasionally stayed with friends. The Council continued to fund the placement.
  2. Mr F says Mr J’s social worker asked him if he could stay with him due to concerns about Mr J’s safety at the placement. Mr F was living in temporary accommodation at the time. He says the social worker asked whether he would be willing to provide accommodation if there was financial help and that once he had suitable accommodation he could be approved as a connected persons foster carer and then as a supported homes host when Mr J turned 18. Mr F agreed and moved into another property in August 2020.
  3. The records show Mr J often changed his mind about where he wished to live. On 5 October Mr J said he wished to stay with Mr F. The Council stopped funding his placement on 17 October and Mr J stayed with Mr F from then until April 2021.
  4. The social worker had started a connected person’s viability assessment of Mr F which was reviewed by a manager and sent to the supported homes service at the end of October 2020.
  5. A visit by supported homes and the social worker to Mr F’s home was arranged for 6 November but then cancelled. This was because there would not be enough time to complete the assessment before the next panel. There were no panels in December due to changes being made to the supported homes service.
  6. The Council’s Assistant Director considered Mr F’s viability assessment, to regulate Mr J’s placement with him as a connected persons’ foster carer. The Assistant Director asked for further checks to be made and agreed to pay Mr F £20 per week for Mr J’s food until he turned 18, backdated to October 2020. The Council says the viability assessment was approved in December. The supported homes service then started to assess Mr F.
  7. In January 2021 Mr F contacted the Council several times as Mr J’s behaviour had deteriorated and he had not made any payments. Mr F said that on 15 January he had had to call the police due to Mr J’s threats of violence, assaults on him and damage to his property. Mr F requested urgent respite but was told nothing could be done during the weekend.

Mr F’s complaint January 2021

  1. Mr F made a formal complaint on 19 January 2021 that he had not received any financial help, training, or support to deal with Mr J’s challenging behaviour. As a result he had had to work extra shifts and had less time to support Mr J. This had put a massive strain on the relationship. Mr F complained he had received no response following his recent requests for support and respite. Neither had he received a letter confirming he was an approved foster carer, which meant he could not support Mr J properly. Mr F asked for:
    • Financial help backdated to June 2020.
    • Immediate help with the current situation by multi-agency intervention, urgent psychiatric assessment of Mr J.
    • An apology and explanation.
    • Ongoing training and emotional help for dealing with Mr J’s behaviour.
  2. The Council replied on 15 February. It apologised the backdated £20 per week payments had not yet been made (This amounted to £300, comprising 15 weeks from October 2020 to when Mr J turned 18). The Council said the connected persons viability assessment had been sent for approval and the supported homes assessment was being progressed. It apologised this had been delayed due to staff absence.
  3. The supported homes service contacted Mr F on 19 February to progress its assessment. The following week, Mr J told the social worker he wished to move to another area and that the relationship with Mr F had broken down. The Council started to search for new accommodation for Mr J.

March 2021

  1. Mr F escalated his complaint on 8 March 2021. He said he had been assured he would be “fast-tracked” as a connected persons foster carer and then progressed to supported homes host but despite providing all the necessary documents this had still not happened. Mr F considered this had been deliberately delayed until after the Council’s responsibilities changed when Mr F turned 18. Mr F said the £20 per week was inadequate but he had still not received it; he was now living in a property he could not afford. He had still received no support after Mr J’s violence and damage to his property.
  2. On 18 March Mr F told the Council he wanted Mr J to move out due to the lack of support he was receiving from the Council. Mr J’s personal advisor told Mr F on 23 March that accommodation had been found but it would be two weeks until Mr J could move. Mr F said he could not wait this long as the relationship had broken down and Mr J had caused further damage to his property. Mr J left Mr F’s home on 6 April. The Council then paid the £300 backdated payment for 17 October 2020 to 6 February 2021.
  3. The Council responded to Mr F’s escalated complaint on 27 April. It said the initial supported homes assessment in November was not progressed as it had been understood Mr J was not living with Mr F then. A connected person’s assessment was then started and a further supported homes assessment was ongoing.
  4. The Council apologised it had not kept Mr F informed about the assessment process, about the lack of support and training and for the delay in paying the £300, which he should now have received. It said Mr J had agreed to pay for the damage to Mr F’s property. Mr F remained dissatisfied and came to the Ombudsman.

The Council’s response to my enquiries

  1. The Council accepted the connected person’s foster carer and supported homes assessments had been delayed. It said it should have ensured the supported homes assessment had been completed to enable the panel to consider it in October 2020.
  2. The Council also accepted that it had wrongly raised Mr F’s expectations that he would be approved as a foster carer and supported homes host and had not properly kept him advised of the assessment process. As a result Mr F had reasonably assumed he would receive payments and training from when Mr J moved in.
  3. The Council therefore offered to pay Mr F £4,930 comprised of:
    • £150 a week supported homes payments from 1 October 2020 to 6 April 2021 (26 weeks: £3,900).
    • £70 a week rent from Mr J’s 18th birthday until he moved on from Mr F’s care (9 weeks: £630).
    • £300 for the damage to Mr F’s home.
    • £100 for the stress caused to Mr F by the lack of training.
  4. In addition, Mr J’s personal advisor would continue to encourage Mr J to reconnect with Mr F, and if Mr J and Mr F agreed, the Council would offer professional support to facilitate this.
  5. The Council acknowledged the support Mr F had provided to Mr J and apologised for the frustration and upset caused by delays, decision making and poor communication.
  6. To improve its service it had audited the connected persons and corporate parenting processes and delivered connected persons training to staff. It was improving management oversight and had agreed that viability assessments would be reviewed by the fostering panel.

My findings

  1. I welcome the Council’s acceptance there was fault, its apology to Mr F and the service improvements it has made.
  2. The Council aims to complete the supported homes assessment within four months, but this should start before the young person moves into the host’s home. The Council should have started the assessment process in June 2020 and have completed it by October, when it terminated Mr J’s placement.
  3. Although I cannot say whether the October 2020 panel would have approved Mr F’s application, I welcome the Council’s acceptance that his expectations had been raised and its offer of remedy from October 2020 to April 2021.
  4. However, the supported homes host payments would have comprised £150 per week plus £70 per week rent when Mr J was 17 years old. Mr J would also have paid the local authority housing rate rent from when he turned 18. I therefore recommend the Council pay Mr F £150 per week plus £70 per week rent from October 2020 to April 2021 (a total of £5,720).
  5. I cannot say that if Mr F had received the supported homes host training the placement would not have broken down, but I consider that he was caused distress by it not being available as he had been asking for this since June 2020. The Council’s offer of £100 is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedying distress.
  6. The Council has offered £300 towards repairing the damage to Mr F’s property caused by Mr J. I have not seen any invoices or estimates of the cost of the works, but I note that it is Mr J not the Council who is responsible for the damage. I therefore consider £300 is a suitable remedy.

Back to top

Agreed action

  1. Within a month of my final decision, the Council has agreed to pay Mr F £6,120 comprising:
    • £150 a week supported homes payments from 1 October 2020 to 6 April 2021 (26 weeks: £3,900).
    • £70 a week rent from 1 October 2020 to 6 April 2021 (26 weeks: £1,820).
    • £300 towards repairing the damage to Mr F's home.
    • £100 for the stress caused to Mr F by the lack of training.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. There was fault by the Council. The actions the Council has agreed to take remedy the injustice caused. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings