Bath and North East Somerset Council (19 016 752)

Category : Children's care services > Looked after children

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 28 Feb 2020

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not offer a reasonable remedy for the distress he experienced during the care proceedings for two of his grandchildren. The Ombudsman will not pursue this complaint further as it is unlikely investigation will lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

  1. Mr X complained the Council offered him £250 to remedy the distress he experienced while two of his grandchildren were subject to care proceedings. Mr X believes the payment should be closer to £1000.

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’. 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

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I have considered all the information Mr X provided. I have also considered the Council’s response. I have written to Mr X with my draft decision and given him the opportunity to comment.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

  1. In February 2017 Mr X and his wife were caring for their two grandchildren informally with the Council’s support. The Council says Mr X and his wife said they could not care for the children permanently because of space limitations and other commitments. In response to this, the Council put child protection plans in place and by July 2017, issued Care Orders and a Final Care Plan to allow the children to be in long term foster care.
  2. Mr X and his wife were supportive of this plan at first, and Mr X supplied the details of a potential foster carer to the Council. The Council assessed the carer but found her to be unsuitable. The Council identified a suitable couple in September 2017. In October 2018 the Council arranged a two-week transition period to allow the children and Mr X and his wife to meet the carers.
  3. The Council says the day before the children were due to move to the carers home, Mr X and his wife expressed reservations. They offered for both sets of grandparents to care for a child, separately. The Council declined this offer and supported the children in moving into the foster carers home. Both sets of grandparents later applied to court for Special Guardianship Orders (SGO’s). Mr X and his wife sought care of their grandson while the paternal grandparents sought care of their granddaughter.
  4. The Council did not support this application as it considered the children should not be separated. It had concerns about the grandparent’s decision-making capabilities, given they changed their minds about caring for the children permanently at a late stage. It was also worried about the effect of this decision on the children’s sense of stability.
  5. In October 2019 the court confirmed the SGO’s as it considered it preferable that the children remain with family.
  6. During the time the children lived with the foster carers, Mr X raised multiple concerns about the suitability of the carers and how the children’s social worker handled their case.
  7. An investigation by the Council found several instances of fault. These included the Council social worker failing to appropriately raise the grandparents concerns over the placement and the carers failing to deal one of the children’s medical issues properly.
  8. To remedy the injustice caused by the fault, the Council recommended actions including an apology to both sets of grandparents and the children, and improved processes for medical checks. The Council also offered Mr X a payment of £250 in recognition of the distress he experienced.

Analysis

  1. The Ombudsman’s guidance of remedies suggests payment for distress is typically between £100 and £300. Where the distress is severe or prolonged, up to £1000 may be justified. Mr X considers he has experienced prolonged distress warranting a payment of £1000.
  2. I consider the Councils proposed payment to be reasonable and proportionate. It weighs the distress Mr X experienced as a result of the Council’s fault alongside the natural distress he would have felt due to the care proceedings. It also considers the extent to which Mr X contributed to his own distress by challenging the foster care plans at a late stage. It is unlikely investigation by the Ombudsman would recommend an increased payment.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely investigation will lead to a different outcome.

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