Summary: The Council was at fault for its failure to assess Mrs B as a foster carer when her granddaughter – who was a looked-after child – moved in with her. However, the Council has already offered suitable remedies for Mrs B’s injustice and no further action is required.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs B, complained to the Council in 2022 about how it had handled her granddaughter’s transition from local authority care to Mrs B’s care. I refer to Mrs B’s granddaughter as C.
2. The Council considered Mrs B’s complaint under the formal Children Act 1989 complaints procedure. This included an independent investigation at stage 2 and a review panel at stage 3. However, she remains dissatisfied.
3. Mrs B complains that:
• Although the Council offered to make a back payment to reflect the costs she incurred looking after C, this payment was not based on the fostering allowance (which is what she should have received). Instead, it was based on Mrs B’s current special guardianship allowance (which is less than half what she would have received as a foster carer).
• Although the stage 3 review panel recommended that the Council make a payment to Mrs B of £2,000 (in addition to the back payment) to recognise her injustice, the Council only offered her £400.
• The Council caused delays while considering her complaint.
4. Mrs B says she suffered a financial injustice from caring for C without proper recognition.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way a council made its decision. If there was no fault in how the council made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. 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)
7. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered information from Mrs B. She and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

9. Mrs B complained to the Council in October 2022. She made numerous complaints about how it had handled C’s case.
10. In May 2023, the independent investigator (who considered Mrs B’s complaint at stage 2 of the complaints procedure) found that:
• When C moved in with Mrs B in September 2022, the Council was concerned that the placement was likely to break down.
• Despite this, it failed to hold a review or explore alternative options.
• Although C was in local authority care when she moved in with Mrs B, the Council failed to assess whether Mrs B would be a suitable foster carer.
11. The investigator recommended that the Council make a payment to Mrs B, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, to recognise her injustice.
12. The Council agreed and offered Mrs B £2,000 (which also recognised the time and trouble she went to while making the complaint). However, it noted that, although it had failed to do a fostering assessment of Mrs B, “we cannot say … what the outcome of that assessment would have been”.
13. Mrs B was dissatisfied. She said it was the Council’s fault that not fostering assessment had taken place. She said the Council should pay her a fostering allowance from the date C had moved in with her.
14. A review panel considered Mrs B’s complaint at stage 3 of the complaints procedure. During the panel hearing, Mrs B said the Council’s offer of £2,000 was insufficient, because:
• It did not cover her solicitor’s fees and court costs.
• C needed counselling, which Mrs B paid for privately, because of her experiences.
• The payment should be in line with ‘scale 5’ of the Ombudsman’s guidelines.
15. The panel recommended that the Council’s offer of £2,000 remain available to Mrs B. But it also recommended that the Council consider giving her a retrospective financial support payment.
16. In response, the Council noted that counselling for C would have been available through her GP for free. It also noted that the ‘scales’ Mrs B referred to were from a different Ombudsman and did not apply to complaints about children’s social care.

17. The Council offered Mrs B:
• A back payment, based on Mrs B’s current special guardianship allowance (minus another allowance she received before June 2023). In deciding this, it noted that the special guardianship allowance is means-tested.
• Reimbursement of her court costs.
• £400 for her time and trouble in making the complaint, as well as any distress arising from it.
18. Mrs B remained dissatisfied and approached the Ombudsman.

My findings

19. I have not reinvestigated Mrs B’s complaint, because she does not disagree with the Council’s findings. Instead, her dissatisfaction is with the action the Council has offered to remedy her injustice.
20. The Council has acknowledged that:
• C was a looked-after child and Mrs B was providing care for her, but at no point did the Council consider assessing whether Mrs B would be a suitable foster carer.
• Despite not doing a fostering assessment of Mrs B, and despite not agreeing with the placement, the Council did not look for anywhere else for C to stay.
• Mrs B suffered distress from – and went to time and trouble navigating – the complaints process.
21. The lack of fostering assessment meant Mrs B lost the opportunity to be considered as a foster carer. A successful assessment would have meant an allowance which significantly exceeded the special guardianship allowance which the Council has now offered to backdate.
22. However, I cannot say the assessment would have been successful. It is true that Mrs B’s subsequent special guardianship assessment was positive; however, this was nine months later. And it appears uncontested that the Council was unsupportive of the placement at the time C moved in.
23. So, although Mrs B lost an opportunity – and this was the Council’s fault – I cannot conclude that she missed out on a fostering allowance, even on the balance of probabilities.
24. The Council feels that the back payment at the level of Mrs B’s special guardianship allowance is a suitable remedy for the costs she incurred looking after C, as it has already been means-tested.
25. Given that her injustice was a loss of opportunity, not a loss of fostering allowance, this was not an unreasonable decision. The Council acted in line with the panel’s recommendation, considered what would be appropriate and explained its decision. There is nothing I can add.
26. I have also considered the Council’s reasons for changing the £2,000 payment (recommended by the panel) to £400. And, again, this was not an unreasonable decision. The Council explained its reasoning, offered to cover Mrs B’s court costs separately, and made an offer which was not obviously out of step with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
27. Consequently, Mrs B’s injustice has already been remedied.

Back to top

Final decision

28. The Council was at fault for its failure to assess Mrs B as a foster carer when C moved in with her. However, it has already offered suitable remedies and no further action is required.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman