Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (22 010 393)
Category : Children's care services > Friends and family carers
Decision : Not upheld
Decision date : 02 Apr 2023
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to end his special guardianship financial support. We have not found the Council to be at fault. Mr X was not entitled to receive an allowance in accordance with the Council’s policy.
The complaint
- Mr X complains about the Council’s refusal to continue to pay a Special Guardianship Order (SGO) allowance when the subject of the SGO, Y, turned 18 but remained in full time education.
- Mr X says the Council’s decision has affected him both emotionally and financially.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- 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)
- We cannot question whether an organisation’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
- 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(i), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
- I spoke to Mr X and considered the information he provided.
- I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response.
- Mr X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before I made my final decision.
What I found
Special Guardianship Order Allowance
- A Special Guardianship Order is a court order that gives a carer parental responsibility for a child.
- Councils can provide financial support if they consider it is necessary to ensure a Special Guardian can look after a child.
- Any financial support is means-tested. This is reflected in the Council’s policy.
What happened
- In 2013, Mr X and his wife, Mrs X, became special guardians for Y. Y became 18 in 2021. Y continued to live at home and in full time education.
- In October 2021, the Council advised Mr X in writing that, “If Y started a course prior to his 18th birthday, you will continue to receive SGO payments until he has completed the course he was enrolled on, on his 18th birthday”.
- In March 2022, the Council carried out at financial assessment. Mrs X had recently taken a job, and this meant the household income was above the threshold for SGO entitlement. The Council stopped SGO allowance payments to Mr X.
- Mr X complained to the Council in June 2022. He believed the Council had failed to honour its commitment made in its letter from October 2021,
- In response, the Council accepted the October 2021 letter failed to mention the payment of an SGO allowance was subject to a means test and apologised. However, Mr X was aware that SGO allowances were subject to a means test because he had completed an annual financial assessment for several years.
- Dissatisfied with this outcome, Mr X brought his complaint to the Ombudsman.
Analysis
- The Ombudsman does not decide whether Mr X should receive a Special Guardianship Order allowance. This is the Council’s responsibility. My role is to check the Council made its decision properly, taking account of all relevant legislation, regulations, guidance and Council policies.
- The Council has explained the allowance was stopped because of the outcome of the financial assessment completed in March 2022. The Council’s policy is clear that allowances are subject to a means test. Mr X’s household income had increased prior to this assessment.
- In my view, Mr X had his expectations raised by the October 2021 letter. This should have referred to the financial assessment. The Council has accepted this was a mistake and has already apologised. I consider this to be a proportionate and appropriate response. I can add nothing further to this.
- I have no grounds to question the decision itself. The Council applied its policy and withdrew the allowance based on the financial assessment. I agree with the Council that Mr X will have been aware this requirement because he had always had to complete an annual financial assessment.
- For this reason, I have not found the Council to be at fault. It made a decision it was entitled to make.
Final decision
- I have not found the Council to be at fault. On this basis, I have completed my investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman