Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the support provided to Mrs X as a foster carer and the Council’s decision to end the foster care placement. It has been properly considered through the children’s statutory complaints procedure and we could not add to that investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained to the Council about its decision to remove a foster child, Y from her care. She said if the Council had provided appropriate support the placement would not have broken down. She said the Council provided inaccurate information to another Local Authority and it had failed to provide her a copy of an assessment it had completed.
2. Mrs X is unhappy with how the Council considered her complaint through the children’s statutory complaints procedure. She said the statement of complaint did not capture her initial complaint as the Investigating Officer broke her concerns into different sections.
3. Mrs X said the damage the Council had caused to her family when removing Y from their care could not be repaired. She wants the Council to improve outcomes for future families.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. The Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate a complaint considered through the statutory complaints procedures unless we consider the investigation was flawed. However, we may look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation.
9. I have reviewed the stage two investigation into Mrs X’s complaint and the stage three panel findings.
10. At stage two, the Investigating Officer (IO) and Independent Person (IP) interviewed relevant council officers, reviewed the case records and applied the relevant statutory guidance. There is no evidence of fault in how they considered the evidence and came to their findings.
11. Although Mrs X is unhappy with the statement of complaint, the IO and IP agreed this with her over three separate meetings. The statement of complaint was amended following comments from Mrs X. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the IO and IP agreed the statement of complaint to justify investigating.
12. At stage three, the panel considered the reasons why Mrs X disagreed with the outcome of the stage two investigation. Mrs X had the opportunity to put across her views and the panel asked questions of the IO and IP. There is no evidence of fault in how the stage three panel was conducted or its consideration of Mrs X’s concerns to justify further investigation.
13. The Council has apologised to Mrs X for the faults identified as part of the stage two investigation. It has made service improvements to address future practice. I am satisfied the recommendations made address the faults identified.
14. The Council has complied with the recommendations made by the stage three panel. It did not agree to complete one recommendation and set out its reasoning for this. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council considered implementing this recommendation to investigate further.
15. There was a delay in the council sending the stage three adjudication letter. The Council explained the reasons for the delay and apologised. I am satisfied the Council’s apology is sufficient to remedy any uncertainty caused by the Council’s delay in responding.
16. Given the above, we will not investigate this complaint. There is not enough evidence to suggest the Council’s investigation was flawed or that it failed to comply with the recommended outcomes. Although Mrs X is unhappy with the Council’s findings, we could not add anything further to the Council’s investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because we are satisfied it has been properly considered through the children’s statutory complaints procedure and further investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman