Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to support his family in caring for a child they had fostered and did not provide the financial support it said it would. This caused Mr X significant financial difficulties and led to the child leaving Mr X’s care. We have ended our investigation we would not add anything significant to the investigation which has already been carried out under the statutory procedure for complaints about children’s services.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X complained the Council delayed in allocating a social worker and failed to support his family to care for Z, a child they had fostered. He also complained the Council threatened and pressured them to continue to care for Z and did not provide the financial support it said it would. This resulted in Z leaving Mr X’s care

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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)
4. 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

5. As part of the investigation, I have considered the documents provided by Mr X and the Council and discussed the issues with Mr X.
6. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

What I found

Private fostering

7. Private fostering is a private arrangement made between the parent and a responsible adult for the care of a child under the age of 16 where the arrangement is planned to last for at least 28 days. Private foster carers are not a close relative of the child but may be from extended family or a friend of the family.
8. The council where the private foster carer lives must be notified of the arrangement. Once a council is aware of a private fostering arrangement it must carry out an assessment of the suitability of the arrangement and prepare a report.
9. The child’s parents remain responsible for any financial support the child might need. The council is not liable to pay any form of fostering allowance. However, if the council considers the child to be a ‘child in need’ they have the power to provide financial support under s17 of the children Act 1989.

Statutory complaints procedures

10. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. The accompanying statutory guidance, ‘Getting the Best from Complaints’, explains councils’ responsibilities in more detail.
11. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
12. If a complainant is not happy with a council’s stage one response, they can ask that it is considered at stage two. At this stage of the procedure, councils appoint an investigator and an independent person who is responsible for overseeing the investigation. Councils have up to 13 weeks to complete stage two of the process from the date of request.
13. If a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of the stage two investigation, they can ask for a stage three review by an independent panel. The council must hold the panel within 30 days of the date of request, and then issue a final response within 20 days of the panel hearing.
14. If a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it 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.

What happened here

15. In October 2022 Z moved to live Mr X and his partner, Ms Y, and their family under a private fostering arrangement. A duty social worker visited Mr X’s home as Z had been identified as a child in need. On learning of the private fostering arrangement the social worker arranged for a private fostering assessment, which began in January 2023.
16. Z’s behaviour while in Mr X’s care was difficult and there were problems with Z running away and placing themselves at risk. This had a detrimental impact on Mr X and his family who struggled to manage Z’s behaviour. Mr X says he was unable to work while Z was in their care which caused significant financial difficulties for the family.
17. Mr X says that when they told the Council they were struggling the Council pleaded with him and Ms Y to continue to care for Z rather than allow her to come in to the Council’s care. He says a council officer told them they would receive a fostering allowance, which would be backdated to when Z first came to stay with them.
18. Z subsequently went to live with Mr X’s stepdaughter for a brief period before moving to their sibling’s home. The Council did not deem this arrangement suitable and placed Z in foster care in early July 2023.
19. Following the breakdown in the arrangement Mr X made a formal complaint to the Council. He was unhappy the Council had delayed in allocating a social worker and had not supported his family to care for Z. He also complained the Council had threatened and pressured them to continue to care for Z and had not provided financial support.
20. The Council’s response addressed each point in turn. It noted its records showed social care had concerns about Z’s missing episodes and about her being unsafe while missing. However, it felt Mr X was managing Z’s behaviour well through appropriate boundaries and that he remained invested in caring for Z. The Council set out the support it had offered while Z was in Mr X’s care, some of which was not used or accessed.
21. The Council considered it had made efforts to support Mr X when he began to struggle with Z but accepted there had been a delay in support from the Early Help service. This support was agreed in March 2023 but did not commence until July 2023.
22. In relation to Mr X’s complaint about financial support the Council noted there was no duty to pay an allowance to a child in a private fostering arrangement. It noted there were no financial concerns about Mr X’s ability to provide care.
23. The Council disputed the social worker had said Mr X’s stepdaughter would get in to trouble with the police if they did not continue to care for Z. It said the Council’s consistent position was that Z would be taken back into the family’s care.
24. The Council agreed Z’s sibling’s home was not a safe place to reside and said it did not place them there. It removed Z from the address and placed then into foster care.
25. Mr X was not satisfied with the Council’s response and asked for his complaint to be considered at stage two of the complaint process. Mr X met with the investigating officer and agreed the following heads of complaint:
1. He received very little support caring for Z who displayed very challenging behaviours. This complaint was subdivided:
1. He had no help, and no social workers attended any of the meetings at Z school, save for the last meeting;
2. The stage one response lists the support offered but does not reflect any consideration of the appropriateness of the support offered;
2. It was four months before a social worker was allocated. The social worker did not then visit or support Z;
3. He did not receive the financial support he was told he would receive;
4. Communication with Children’s Services was poor, and he was not advised about his position as a carer or the financial implications;
5. When Z moved to live with Mr X’s stepdaughter she was not supported. Social care threatened his stepdaughter would be in trouble for neglect if she did not continue to care for Z.
26. The stage two investigation partly upheld complaint 1b. The investigator was satisfied social workers has followed correct procedure and became involved at the right time. However, it concluded the support identified as needed very early on was not provided quickly enough. A referral to Early Help should have been considered in February 2023 but a referral was not made until May 2023.
27. The investigation also partly upheld complaint 5. The investigator did not accept social workers had deliberately pressured Mr X or his stepdaughter, but acknowledged Mr X did feel pressured.
28. The investigation did not uphold complaints 1a, 2 or 3 and made no findings in relation to complaint 4.
29. The investigation report made service improvement recommendations and recommended the Council apologise to Mr X and make a payment to recognise the delay in providing adequate and appropriate support. The Council accepted the investigation findings and recommendations and offered Mr X remedy payment of £200.
30. Mr X maintained they had been repeatedly told they would receive financial support and did not consider the offer of £200 adequately reflected the costs they had incurred. He also maintained there was a delay in the social worker being allocated and that he had repeatedly asked social worker for help but had not received any. Mr X felt the investigation had used the fact social worker no longer worked for the Council as an excuse to avoid responsibility.
31. The Stage three Panel considered Mr X’s complaint in February 2024. Mr X was invited but did not attend the panel meeting. The Panel agreed with the stage two findings in relation to complaints 1, 2 and 3, However it upheld complaint 4 and made no finding in relation to complaint 5.
32. The Panel noted Mr X had not identified any specific outcomes he hoped to achieve at this stage of the complaints process. But as much of his complaint concerned the financial impact of caring for Z, the Panel considered whether to recommend a financial award. The Panel concluded there is no statutory or procedural requirement to provide an allowance for a private foster placement. And that there are no exceptional circumstances that suggest it should have been done in this instance. It did not therefore recommend payment of a fostering allowance. The Panel considered the Council’s offer of £200 to recognise the emotional distress placed on Mr X was appropriate.
33. The Council accepted the Panel’s findings and recommendations and repeated its offer of £200.
34. As Mr X remains dissatisfied he has asked the Ombudsman to investigate his complaint. Mr X says they continued to care for Z despite the financial difficulties this caused as they were told they would receive a backdated fostering allowance. He would like the Council to pay this allowance for the full period Z lived with is family.

Analysis

35. The statutory children’s complaints procedure was set up to provide children, young people and those involved in their welfare with an independent response to their concerns. Because of this, if a council has investigated something under the statutory procedure, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it.
36. We may decide to look at whether there were any significant flaws in the stage two investigation or stage three review panel that could call the findings into question. We may also consider whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation and review panel.
37. There is no indication of fault in the way Mr X’s complaint was considered. Mr X disagrees with the findings of the investigation, but they are reasonable and defensible.
38. This was a private fostering arrangement. As such the Council was not liable to pay any form of fostering allowance. Although Mr X is clear in his assertion that two officers offered financial support the investigation found no record of this. Mr X has confirmed he did not receive any form of written confirmation that the Council would pay a fostering allowance, either at the outset or when they were struggling to care for Z.
39. The investigation upheld elements of Mr X’s complaint and made appropriate recommendations. The Council has accepted the findings and recommendations in full. That being the case, there are no grounds for the Ombudsman to intervene.

Back to top

Final decision

40. I have ended my investigation as we would not add anything significant to the investigation which has already been carried out under the statutory procedure for complaints about children's services.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman