Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to allegations made against the complainant as a foster carer. This is because investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The PA complains that the Council was at fault in its response to allegations made about her as a foster carer, and in dealing with her subsequent complaint. She says this has caused her significant distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X is a foster carer for the Council. Her complaint relates to the Council’s response to allegations made against her by two young people in her care and by a social worker. The allegations led to a Standard of Care investigation by the Council. Mrs X argues that the allegations were false, did not warrant the action the Council took, and that her years of experience were not taken into account.
6. Mrs X made a complaint to the Council which it considered under its corporate complaints procedure. Although the Council substantially upheld the complaint and accepted that it was at fault, Mrs X argues that the outcome fails to properly address the matter.
7. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. It is unlikely we would add significantly to the investigation the Council has carried out. We will not intervene to investigate complaints which have already been substantially upheld unless it appears that the investigation was flawed or the outcome was unreasonable. Neither is demonstrably the case here.
8. In support of her complaint, Mrs X makes the point that the final response does not reflect the desired outcomes set out in the Stage 2 investigation report. It does not follow that the outcomes set out in the final adjudication letter are not reasonable. That being the case, it does not provide grounds for further consideration.
9. Mrs X says the primary outcome she is seeking from her complaint is that her name is cleared and that it is reflected in the Council’s records that the allegations against her were unfounded. The merits of the allegations are not for the Ombudsman to comment on, so clearing Mrs X’s name is not something investigation could achieve for her. If she believes the Council’s records contain information about her which is false or factually incorrect, her recourse is to pursue her legal right to rectification.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman