Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint the Council failed to provide support and training when it placed a child in her and her husband’s care. The Council has already investigated and responded to some of Mrs X’s concerns under all three stages of the statutory complaint procedure. It has apologised and offered remedial action and payment for the injustice caused by the fault identified. We could not add to the Council’s responses or achieve anything more. We will not investigate other elements of Mrs X’s complaints to us because they are late, the law prevents us, or the Council has not had the opportunity to consider these matters.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council has failed to properly support and train her and her husband since it placed a child, Y (related to them) in their care periodically since 2015 and permanently in late 2019. Her complaints about the Council include:
1. failure to acknowledge Y was with them under a foster placement rather than a family arrangement;
2. placing Y in Mrs X and her husband’s care in 2015 and 2017 but not providing a fostering allowance for these periods;
3. misrepresenting information to the court during care proceedings;
4. failure to provide the correct educational support to Y;
5. failure to provide information about funding for home adaptations to meet Y’s needs.

Mrs X says they have had to downsize to afford the additional costs and give up work to care for Y. She wants the Council to acknowledge its faults and reimburse the costs she and her husband have incurred.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
6. 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 or continue an investigation if we decide we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. The statutory children’s complaints procedure was set up to provide children, young people and those involved in their welfare with access to an independent, thorough and prompt response to their concerns. Because of this, if a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it. However, we may look at whether there were any flaws in the stage two investigation or stage three review panel that could call the findings into question.
10. The Council concluded its consideration of Mrs X’s complaints under stage three of the statutory complaint process in December 2024. This included consideration of the following complaints about the Council:

• failure to provide the Training, Support and Development Standards (TSDS) Manual to Mrs X and her husband in a timely way to enable them to complete the required training as foster carers.
• holding no records of Special Guardianship reports and references obtained in 2017 despite the Council telling Mrs X it had begun the process.
• refusal to progress Mrs X and her husband to level 4 foster carers, despite them meeting the requirements for this skill level due to Y’s significant and complex needs.

11. The stage three review panel review decided the outcome for the first element of Mrs X’s complaint should be upheld rather than partially upheld as determined at stage two. The Council accepted it took far longer than it should to provide Mrs X and her husband with a copy of the TSDS Manual and this may have hindered their ability to progress their training as foster carers. It apologised for the delay and offered Mrs X and her husband a symbolic payment of £1,000 in recognition of the distress and uncertainty caused.
12. The stage three review panel agreed with the outcome not to uphold the other two complaint elements investigated. The Council accepted the recommendations made at stage two and three to ensure record keeping was improved and support was offered to help Mrs X complete level one foster carer training. The Council also confirmed it made the decision to place Y with Mrs X and her husband, rather than it being a family arrangement. The Council also offered to meet with Mrs X and her husband to discuss their concerns and to try to help resolve them, so they feel better supported.
13. Further investigation of Mrs X’s complaints by us is unlikely to add to the Council’s responses. The Council’s responses to Mrs X’s complaints under all three stages of the statutory process were detailed and thorough. The remedial action the Council has offered to Mrs X is in line with the recommendations we would typically expect in such cases.
14. We will not normally investigate a complaint which has already been through all stages of the statutory process. It is not a good use of public money to do so. There is unlikely to be further evidence available that would lead us to a different outcome or conclusions. In this case, the question for us is whether our intervention would add anything to the Council’s investigation and there is nothing to suggest that it would do so.
15. Mrs X’s complaint to us as set out in paragraph 1(b) above relates to events that happened nearly a decade ago. We usually expect people to complain to us within 12 months of the events they are complaining about. Any issues Mrs X continues to have about the Council’s handling that occurred more than 12 months prior to her bringing her complaint to us are now late. I have seen no evidence to suggest Mrs X could not have raised these concerns with the Council at the time and then brought these matters to us if necessary. I will not exercise discretion to investigate this late complaint now.
16. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint set out in paragraph 1(c) because the existence of court action creates a permanent and absolute bar that prevents us from investigating this matter.
17. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaints set out in paragraphs 1(d) and 1(e) because I am not satisfied these issues have been raised with the Council. The law says we should give the Council the opportunity to investigate and respond to these issues before we get involved. It is not unreasonable for Mrs X to submit these specific complaints to the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaints for the following reasons:

• further investigation by us could not add to the Council’s responses;
• it is too late for us to consider complaints about events from 2015 to 2017;
• the law prevents us from considering anything that has been the subject of court proceedings; and,
• the Council should be allowed the opportunity to investigate and respond to complaints Mrs X has not made to it before.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman