Kent County Council (18 014 181)

Category : Children's care services > Other

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 10 May 2019

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to properly compensate her after her belongings became water damaged. There is no fault in how the Council calculated the amount of compensation it offered. The Council is at fault for the damage caused to Miss X’s belongings. It should pay her £150 to recognise the distress this caused.

The complaint

  1. Mr Y complained on behalf of his daughter, Miss X. Miss X stated the Council failed to repair and replace her belongings after they were left outside her respite foster placement and became water damaged. Miss X has turned down the Council’s offer of £500 for the damaged property.
  2. Mr Y stated his daughter is a looked after child and her belongings give her comfort and help her move between placements. She was upset and distressed after they were damaged.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’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)
  2. If we are satisfied with a council’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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I discussed the complaint with Mr Y and read the Council’s complaint response to Miss X.
  2. I made enquiries of the Council. It provided a list of the damaged property and responded to my questions.
  3. Mr X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

  1. Miss X lives in foster care. At the end of July 2018, Miss X moved to a respite foster care placement for the weekend. Her foster carer took her personal belongings to the new placement, but there was nobody in. They left her belongings uncovered outside the property. They believed the respite carers would see these on their return home and move them indoors.
  2. The respite carers did not discover Miss X’s property until after the weekend. As it had been raining, all Miss X’s property was wet. This included gaming machines, computer games, some clothes and all her personal belongings.
  3. During a home visit, Mr Y gave the Council a list of all Miss X’s items that had suffered from water damage.
  4. On 11 September, Mr Y complained to the Council on Miss X’s behalf. He was unhappy Miss X’s electrical belongings had been given to the previous foster carer to be tested. He did not believe these had been tested properly. He stated Miss X had not had her belongings returned and was upset because of this.
  5. The Council contacted Miss X to make sure she was happy for Mr Y to represent her. It then completed an investigation, responding to Miss X’s complaint on 25 September 2018.
  6. The Council’s complaint response noted Miss X had met the foster carer and accepted their apology for leaving her belongings outside. The foster carer had also had all her electrical items tested to make sure they were safe and worked. All devices worked except one. It confirmed all of Miss X’s belongings had been returned to her.
  7. The Council advised that during a visit on 14 September 2018, Miss X’s social worker went through the list of damaged belongings with Miss X. They recorded what was damaged and what was working. The Council apologised for what had happened and agreed to replace the damaged items. This did not happen immediately as the Council was waiting to see if the damaged property could be claimed through the foster carers house insurance.
  8. In October 2018, Mr Y contacted the Council as he was frustrated Miss X’s belongings still had not been replaced. He said the cost of damaged goods came to £2,000.
  9. On 8 November 2018, the Council spoke to the foster carer. They advised they were unable to claim for the damaged property on their house insurance as it had occurred outside their home.
  10. The Council sent a letter to Miss X and Mr Y. It apologised the matter was taking so long to resolve. It agreed to test Miss X’s electrical belongings. The Council also offered to meet them both at the start of December to try to resolve the issue of the outstanding property that needed replacing. Miss X did not want to attend this meeting, so Mr Y went for her.
  11. On 27 November 2018, Mr X asked for a stage two independent investigation into the damage to Miss X’s belongings. The Council told Mr X it would not complete a stage two investigation as it had fully upheld the complaint at stage one.
  12. On 11 December 2018, the Council wrote to Miss X and offered:
    • to test all her electrical items;
    • to buy her a new quilt and pillow; and
    • to give her £500 in vouchers as way of an apology and to replace her belongings.
  13. The Council also told Miss X that her previous foster carer had offered her a £100 voucher, as way of an apology.
  14. Miss X remained unhappy with the Council’s offer and on 13 December 2018, Mr Y complained to the Ombudsman on her behalf. Mr Y stated the value of Miss X’s belongings came to £500, however, this did not include teddy bears that were damaged. He stated the electrical items were worth £1,548 and these had not been properly electrically tested.

Council’s response to enquires

  1. The Council provided the list of Miss Y’s items that were left in the rain. There are some items it has decided not to replace because there is no evidence of damage and they are in working order - this includes the selection of teddy bears.
  2. The Council stated it considered the list of damaged items Mr X provided, and excluding the electrical items, considered £500 to be a reasonable offer to Miss X to allow her to replace the damaged items. This includes items such as books, DVDs, trainers and posters. In addition, the foster carer has offered Miss X £100.
  3. The Council stated there were two electrical items it could not test as there were no power cables - these were both gaming machines. The Council has since tested one of these and confirmed it does not work. The Council has offered to replace this item.
  4. The rest of Miss X’s electrical belongings were tested on 5 February 2019. These have been returned as working.
  5. The Council has apologised to Miss X and Mr Y about any delay in resolving the complaint. They state they have tried to involve Miss X, Mr Y and Miss X’s personal adviser whilst dealing with the complaint and ensure Miss X’s voice has been heard.

My findings

  1. The Council has accepted it was at fault for the damage caused to Miss X’s belongings. It has apologised for this. However, this does not remedy the distress caused to Miss X by her belongings being damaged or the time she was without them.
  2. Miss X was unhappy with the Council’s offer of compensation for the damaged goods. In Mr Y’s complaint to the Ombudsman he stated the cost of belongings was £500. This is the value the Council has offered to compensate Miss X. Therefore, the Council’s offer of compensation is in line with Mr Y’s estimate. The Council is not at fault.
  3. The Council has had Miss X’s electrical appliances tested. The test confirmed most of Miss X’s appliances are safe to use. Of the remaining items, one gaming machine was damaged and the Council has offered to replace this. The Council cannot test the other gaming machine because it does not have a power cable. There is no fault in the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Agreed Actions

  1. In addition to the compensation the Council has already agreed to pay to Miss X, within one month of my final decision the Council has agreed to:
    • pay Miss X £150 to remedy the distress caused by having her belongings damaged and to reflect the time she was without them.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. The Council was at fault for the damage caused to Miss X’s personal belongings. It has agreed to my recommendations therefore I have completed my investigation.

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