Summary: We found no fault on Mrs P’s complaint about the Council giving her incorrect information before she agreed to foster her two grandchildren who came to live with her in rented accommodation. There is no evidence to support what she claimed was said at this time. Nor do the records made in the following years support what she claimed either.

The complaint

1. Mrs P complains about the Council giving her wrong information before she fostered her two grandchildren who came to live with her which meant she had to move to rented accommodation instead of living in a property she owned: as a result, she lost the chance to remain in her own house and have it extended to allow them all to live there which also cost her financially.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered all the information Mrs P sent, including the notes I made of our telephone conversation, and the Council’s response to my enquiries. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Mrs P and the Council. I considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mrs P retired and moved abroad. There had been court proceedings involving her daughter and the care of her grandson and granddaughter.
7. In 2019, Mrs P claimed a social worker gave her two bits of incorrect information while outside of court. These were:

• she would only get the children living with her through a Special Guardianship Order (SGO); and
• the two-bedroom home she had in the UK (property 1), which she owned outright, was too small for the children to live in with her.

8. In 2020, she received a call about the Council removing the children from her daughter’s care. She returned to the UK just before the country went into lockdown to foster the children.
9. After a short time staying at her sister’s house with the children, Mrs P decided to rent property 2. She claimed she did this because of the social worker’s comments about property 1 made at court the previous year.
10. Property 2 had three-bedrooms so the children could each have their own bedroom. Mrs P paid the rent and used some of her savings each month to meet their living costs shortfall. The children had already moved to a closer school. They all continue to live in property 2.
11. During a foster parent training course in 2022, Mrs P discovered the advice she said the social worker gave her years before was incorrect. Some of those on the course told her they lived in similar properties to property 1. The Council had financially helped them extend or create loft extensions, for example.
12. Mrs P believed this would have been an option for her had she been given the correct advice. This was because property 1 had space to be extended. It would have meant she could have avoided paying rent for property 2 for several years and she would have benefited from staying in her own, mortgage free house.
13. I now consider each of her complaints:

Incorrect information: Special Guardianship Order

14. The Council provided the following evidence showing different options were considered:

• Minutes for a meeting in March 2020, for example, noted a further assessment was needed to decide the best possible option for a permanent arrangement for the children with Mrs P. The options recorded were a foster placement, where the Council would share parental responsibility, a SGO, or Child Arrangement Order (CAO).
• Minutes for January 2021 noted in a previous review, the discussion was about the children remaining with Mrs P either through a Care Order or SGO. Case notes record Mrs P asking the Council not to pursue the SGO option. She wanted them to stay with her under long-term fostering arrangements. It noted Mrs P previously said she was keen to pursue a SGO and was advised to get independent legal advice about it.
• Case records for June again record a discussion about options. The options were a Care Order or SGO.
• Minutes for a meeting in July noted Mrs P had considered a SGO for the children but did not want to pursue this as an option.

My findings

15. I found no fault on this complaint. There is no record of the conversation Mrs P said she had with a social worker at court in 2019 to support her claim. This was a conversation she said she had a year before she decided to return to the UK.
16. Even if the social worker had said this to her, the evidence from 2020 to 2021 shows alternatives to a SGO were discussed and considered with Mrs P who was aware of them.

Incorrect information: Housing

17. The Council confirmed:

• a Viability Assessment carried out in 2018 stated if the children were to live with her, she and her husband would move into their two-bedroom property (property 1) which had a room they could convert into an additional bedroom. A relative renting it knew he would need to find somewhere else to live if needed. Mrs P denied her husband was ever mentioned or included in moving to the UK to care for the children as they have a business abroad. She also said she heard what was in the report when it was read out in court. She told the court this was incorrect during the hearing.
• the Special Guardianship Order report done in 2018/2019 stated the same. The SGO assessment noted she owned property 1. It recorded Mrs P saying this was where she would live if a SGO was made. She said it was a two-bedroom property with a room she could convert to an extra bedroom if needed. She had reviewed her housing with her husband and son should she return to the UK. She viewed the property as temporary but was not appropriate for them in the long term. At the time, she decided living abroad with the children was the most realistic option. Living in the UK would mean selling property 1 and finding appropriate accommodation.
• there is no record of the conversation she claimed she had at court with the social worker in 2019.
• the social worker denied ever saying property 1 was unsuitable to Mrs P.
• in April 2020, she enquired about housing when she returned to the UK as at this point, she was living with her sister and had described herself as ‘effectively homeless’. She was advised to make a housing application which it would support.
• at the time of the fostering assessment, the Council explained Mrs P was living with the children at her sister’s house and while it was aware of property 1, a relative was living in it and there was no suggestion of him moving out.
• case notes made in January 2021 record Mrs P saying she needed to move to a bigger property to care for the children so had rented property 2.
• a Child Placement panel meeting in November noted the social worker saying Mrs P had to rent a three-bedroom property as the children could not share a bedroom.
• during a visit in November 2022, a social worker noted property 2 was a privately rented 3-bedroom house. It recorded her unhappiness that she was told extending property 1 was not possible while other foster carers in a similar position were allowed to do so with Council help. The records noted the social worker was unaware of her receiving any such advice previously and understood a nephew was living in it which was ‘non-negotiable’. She agreed to discuss this with a manager as it might still be an option. Mrs P said the children would not want to move now to property 1.
• notes for December record Mrs P saying again she was told she could not stay in property 1 because it was too small and unsuitable. She found out the Council had helped others and felt this unfair. She was paying rent for property 2 when she could have stayed in property 1 at no cost.
• there was no record of property 1 being assessed or visited. This was because Mrs P was not living in it.
• there was no formal policy for providing help with extensions to properties at the time the original viability/special guardianship assessments were done. The policy only came into force in August 2021. Before this, extensions or adaptations were done on a case-by-case basis. Mrs P may have been eligible.

My findings

18. I found no fault on this complaint. This is because there is no record of the social worker making the comment at court which supports Mrs P’s claim. The social worker denied saying this to Mrs P.
19. Nor do the records make any reference over the years to property 1 being unsuitable or Mrs P referring to having been told it was unsuitable. She only raised it as a concern when other foster carers on a training course told her the Council had financially helped them with their properties.
20. Nor have I seen any evidence that would have alerted the Council to the possibility she needed financial help to extend her property when it brought in the new policy in August 2021 or before that date.

Back to top

Final decision

21. I found no fault on Mrs P’s complaint against the Council.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman