Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council treated her and her husband as foster carers. The Council is at fault for not fully following the standards of care process and delaying its response to Mrs X’s request for a stage two investigation. This caused distress and uncertainty to Mr and Mrs X. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment and remind staff of the importance of following the full standards of care process.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about how the Council treated her and her husband, Mr X, as foster carers. She says the Council:

• documented lies about them related to a home visit which wrongly resulted in a standards of care review;
• failed to acknowledge that it found many of the allegations made against Mr and Mrs X to be untrue;
• refused to escalate her complaint or provide a full response after three months; and
• failed to investigate her complaint properly, including asking a member of staff who the complaint was about to investigate.

2. Mrs X says this has caused her great distress and that the Council’s actions made her and Mr X believe the child would be removed from their care. Mrs X says she no longer trusts the Council because of these actions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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)
5. 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

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have not investigated Mrs X’s complaint that the Council failed to investigate her complaint properly, including asking a member of staff who the complaint was about to investigate. This is because Mrs X said that when she raised this with the Council, it agreed that it should not ask this member of staff to investigate. The Council then made other arrangements for the investigation. Therefore, any injustice that may have been caused by this, is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
7. I have investigated the remainder of Mrs X’s complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered the information Mrs X and the Council provided.
9. Mrs X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered these comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and guidance

10. When children are in foster care, the foster carers have their own fostering social worker (FSW), who is responsible for supporting and assessing their care. The children will have their own social worker (CSW).

Council’s Standards of Care / Managing Allegations Policy, Procedure and Guidance

11. The statutory guidance regarding standards of care concerns relating to foster carers and their practice are set out in the National Minimum Standards for Fostering Services 2011 and the Fostering Services Regulations 2011. The investigation process into any standards of care concern is managed by the fostering service.
12. The Council has a process which must be followed in each case where a standard of care concern is raised. Concerns may be expressed in relation to conduct, attitude or practices of the foster carer.
13. Firstly, the FSW, should raise the concerns with their line manager for discussion.
14. Then, within one working day, the Council should make a referral to the LADO (Local Authority Designated Officer) in order that it can be noted, and a decision made on whether the concerns are significant enough to warrant a formal investigation.
15. Whatever actions are agreed by the LADO, fostering team manager and FSW, these should be carried out by the fostering service.
16. The FSW should make it clear to the foster carer which of the National Minimum Standards apply when discussing the standards of care concern with the foster carer. Following the initial discussion with the foster carer the FSW should ensure that a letter is sent to the Foster Carer detailing the ‘concerns’ raised.

National Minimum Standards

17. The National Minimum Standards (‘the standards’) 2011, are a set of standards that are underpinned by regulations governing fostering.
18. National Minimum Standard 3 is concerned with promoting positive behaviour and relationships. It requires foster carers to provide an environment and culture that promotes, models and supports positive behaviour.

Council complaint procedure

19. The Council does not have a specific foster carer complaint policy. The Council says it looks to rectify complaints informally and if this is not possible, a foster carer can follow its corporate complaint procedure.
20. When a complaint is sent to the complaints team, if it cannot be dealt with within five working days, it will go to the formal procedure.
21. The corporate complaint procedure has two stages:

• stage one: is local resolution. A member of staff from the service being complained about will look at the complaint. They will decide when they will respond to the complaint and agree that date with the complainant. However, it should not take longer than 20 working days.
• stage two: if a complaint is accepted for a stage two investigation, a senior council officer from a different service will review the complaint. Stage two should not take longer than 20 working days.

Summary of key events

22. Mr and Mrs X are foster carers for a child, Y.
23. In mid-November 2023, Mr and Mrs X’s FSW visited them at their home. Following the visit, the Council raised concerns about the intimidating behaviour of Mr and Mrs X. The Council was also concerned about Mr and Mrs X raising issues with Y’s family directly, instead of telling the Council about these concerns.
24. Council case records show that shortly after this, the Council decided that Mr and Mrs X’s behaviour was not acceptable for foster carers and decided to arrange a standards of care meeting.
25. Three days later, the Council wrote to Mr and Mrs X to invite them to this meeting which would be held just over two weeks later. The letter said the purpose of the meeting would be to discuss concerns around Mr and Mrs X’s professional conduct as foster carers. The letter said that these concerns related to National Minimum Standard 3 and listed the concerns specifically.
26. The Council postponed the standards of care meeting on two occasions as it said there was nobody available to attend from a fostering advocacy service.
27. In early December, Mrs X made a stage one complaint to the Council. She complained about the unprofessional conduct of the FSW. She also complained that the Council had incorrectly recorded false allegations about her and Mr X and that the standards of care meeting would be based on fabricated events.
28. The Council provided a response to Mrs X’s complaint mid-December, covering some of the points she had raised. The Council said that other points could be discussed at the standards of care meeting which would now be held in January 2024.
29. At the beginning of January 2024, Mrs X asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage two as she was concerned that the standards of care meeting kept being postponed. Mrs X also said she raised concerns with Social Work England about the FSW’s fitness to practice.
30. In mid-January the Council held the standards of care meeting. Mr and Mrs X attended the meeting alongside a different team manager and a fostering advocate. The FSW did not attend the meeting and neither did the manager that had been dealing with the process so far.
31. The meeting concluded that it was not possible to reach an agreement about Mr and Mrs X’s conduct during the visit. CCTV had shown that the FSW may have been mistaken about some of the events, which the Council said may have been because she felt threatened. The Council and Mr and Mrs X agreed that in future, the foster carers would tell the Council about any issues with Y’s family rather than discussing them directly with the family themselves.
32. The following day, the complaints team contacted the fostering team to ask if the matter had been resolved or if Mrs X’s complaint should be escalated to stage two.
33. The fostering team replied a few days later to say it could not make any comments on the behaviour of the FSW or Mr and Mrs X but acknowledged that discussions became tense, and all parties were frustrated. The Council recorded that both the FSW and Mr and Mrs X would be offered training to prevent this happening again.
34. The fostering team responded to Mrs X about the complaint mid-January 2024. It apologised for the delay in responding. The letter said they were unable to comment directly on the visit, but they understood that discussions were heightened due to differing perspectives and acknowledged this could have been handled more sensitively. The response asked Mrs X to confirm if this had resolved the issue or if she would still like to escalate the complaint to stage two.
35. Mrs X says she telephoned the Council after this to ask it to escalate the complaint to stage two. Mrs X says a council officer told her that they were going on leave so progressing the complaint would have to wait until their return.
36. In mid-February, Mrs X contacted the complaints team and made a further request for the complaint to be escalated to stage two. The complaints team responded a week later to say that the FSW had left the Council which would hinder any investigation into their practice and actions. The email asked Mrs X to clarify her points of complaint and desired outcomes.
37. At the beginning of March, Mrs X emailed the complaints team again to say she wished to escalate her complaint to stage two. She reiterated her complaint points.
38. The complaints team responded to say that as the FSW had left, any investigation would be hindered. It also said that it could not consider inaccuracies in records through the complaints process and instead she could provide her own views and comments which it could add to the records, or she could consider her right to rectification. The Council confirmed that Mrs X had now exhausted the complaints procedure.

Analysis

The Council’s documentation of the visit and the standards of care process

39. The Ombudsman’s role is to review how councils have made their decisions. We may criticise a council if, for example, it has not followed an appropriate procedure, not considered relevant information, or not properly explained a decision it has made. We call this fault, and, where we find it, we can consider any consequences of the fault and ask the relevant council to address these.
40. However, we do not make operational or policy decisions on councils’ behalf, provide a right of appeal against their decisions, or seek to replace their judgement with our own. If a council has made a decision without fault then we cannot criticise it, no matter how strongly a complainant feels it is wrong. We do not uphold complaints simply because someone feels a council should have done something different.
41. What that means for this case is that it is not for me to make my own judgement about whether Mr and Mrs X should have been subject to the standards of care process. However, I can consider whether the Council properly made its decision about this and explained it fully to Mr and Mrs X.
42. The Council has a policy to deal with the standards of care process which considers guidance and legislation. In line with this policy, the FSW raised the concerns with their manager immediately, who then decided to instigate the standards of care process.
43. The Council showed its consideration of the concerns raised by the FSW by sending Mr and Mrs X a letter about the standards of care process. This letter provided thorough reasoning about the concerns about conduct, attitude, or practices of the foster carers as stated in the guidance. It also explained which of the National Minimum Standards it was concerned that Mr and Mrs X were not following. I am therefore satisfied the Council properly explained its decision to Mr and Mrs X and there is no fault here.
44. However, the Council failed to record that it held a conversation with the LADO to discuss the concerns, as the policy requires. This is fault and this has caused Mr and Mrs X uncertainty about whether the Council properly followed the procedure.
45. I also note that Mr and Mrs X do not agree with the account the Council gave about the home visit that took place in November 2023 which led to the standards of care meeting. The Council confirmed it could not consider their complaint about the inaccuracies in records through the complaint process, however they did have a right to rectification. I cannot say if the FSW’s account of Mr and Mrs X’s conduct was inaccurate. However, if Mr and Mrs X still feel this is the case, they should use their right of rectification.
46. Mr and Mrs X have a right under the Data Protection Act to ask that documents are rectified. This means that any errors are corrected. If the Council fails to correct any errors, Mr and Mrs X can complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The ICO is an independent body that considers data protection disputes which includes ‘right to rectification’ disputes. The ICO are better placed than us to consider if the Council should change its records.

Allegations about Mr and Mrs X

47. I have viewed copies of the standards of care meeting minutes and complaint responses. In these, the Council acknowledged that it was unable to reach an agreement about Mr and Mrs X’s conduct during the visit. However, the Council did say that CCTV had shown that the FSW may have been mistaken about some of the events due to feeling threatened. The Council also recorded that Mr and Mrs X were providing an excellent standard of care to Y.
48. Because of this, I am satisfied that the Council acknowledged strengths in Mr and Mrs X’s care of Y, as well as potential risks. It also appears to have outlined a potential weakness in the FSW’s allegations and considered this before responding to Mr and Mrs X.
49. The weighing up of strengths and weaknesses in decision-making is a matter entirely for councils, not the Ombudsman. Therefore, I find no fault about this matter.
50. If Mr and Mrs X are still unhappy that the Council has these allegations on record, they should use their right of rectification.

Complaint process

51. Mr and Mrs X were unhappy with the way the Council dealt with their complaint, including the Council refusing to escalate their complaint.
52. The Council has a complaints policy which sets the standard for complaint handling.
53. Mrs X asked on four occasions (two in January, one in February, one in March) for her complaint to be escalated to stage two. When the Council responded about this matter, in mid-March, it declined to escalate the complaint as it said that the FSW had now left and so this would hinder any investigation.
54. The Council did not provide information about when the FSW’s employment ended, however, it was clear that when Mrs X first asked for the complaint to be escalated at the beginning of January the FSW was still in employment.
55. I find fault with the Council’s delayed response to Mrs X’s request for a stage two investigation. This delay meant that the FSW had left the Council and could not be consulted with, which led to Mr and Mrs X’s right to a stage two complaint to be denied. This has caused Mr and Mrs X distress and uncertainty.
56. Mr and Mrs X are aware of their right to complain to Social Work England about the FSW in question, whether they have left the Council or not.

Back to top

Agreed action

57. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr and Mrs X for the distress and uncertainty caused by failing to follow the standards of care process and delaying its response to Mrs X’s request for a stage two investigation. It has also agreed to make a payment to them of £200 to recognise their injustice. It has provided evidence that it has done these things.
58. Within one month, the Council has also agreed to provide evidence that it has reminded fostering staff of the importance of liaising with the LADO when there are concerns about standards of care relating to foster carers.

59. The Council will provide us with evidence it has done this.

Back to top

Final decision

60. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault causing injustice.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman