Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to reassess her suitability to care for her grandchildren and for failing to pay for her travel expenses to visit her grandchildren. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, one complaint element is premature as it has not completed the Council’s complaints procedure.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council refused to reassess her suitability to care for her grandchildren. She also complains the Council has not adhered to the Court order for it to pay for her travel expenses to visit her grandchildren.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council completed viability assessments for Miss X’s suitability to care for her grandchildren in 2020 and 2021. One of these assessments was completed by an independent assessor. The outcome of this assessments was that Miss X was not recommended to be a suitable carer for her grandchildren as she could not ensure the children’s safety or meet their long-term needs.
7. The Council completed a new viability assessment in 2023. This assessment considered the outcomes of the previous assessments and Miss X’s medical circumstances. The assessment found it was not appropriate to recommend Miss X for a further full fostering assessment. This was due to the previous two negative assessments, the negative medical outcome, and because Miss X’s children had been placed in local authority care.
8. An investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault. This is because the Council has recently considered Miss X’s suitability to provide care to her grandchildren by completing a reassessment. The Council has outlined the reasons for why it considered it was not appropriate to progress Miss X to a full fostering assessment. As there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered its decision, it is entitled to make its decision.
9. Miss X also complained the Council was not adhering to the Court order for it to pay for her travel expenses to see her grandchildren. The Council explained the Court has not made any order for the Council to pay for her travel expenses. Instead, the Council had agreed it would purchase tickets for Miss X in advance. However, Miss X had not liaised with the looked after children’s team to enable this to be done.
10. In any case, this complaint is premature to the Council as the complaint has not yet exhausted the Council’s complaints procedure. This is because there is no evidence Miss X escalated her complaint to stage two. It is open to Miss X to do so if she is unhappy with the Council’s response.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, one complaint element is premature as it has not completed the Council’s complaints procedure.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman