Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to significantly increase the threshold before mileage can be claimed as expenses. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision to significantly increase the threshold before mileage can be claimed as expenses. She says she is now financially worse off.

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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X is a foster carer. In 2024, the Council amended its carer’s fees and allowances policy. This changed the mileage threshold from 25 miles per week to 63 miles per week. This meant for the first 63 miles driven each week (in relation to travel for the child looked after), carers had to use their fostering allowance to pay for this. After this threshold is reached, carers can claim mileage expenses.
7. Mrs X said this change effectively cancelled out the uplift to the national minimum fostering allowance. She would like the Council to revert its policy back to the 25 miles per week threshold.
8. The Council explained it had reviewed the policy of neighbouring councils and that its policy had been notably generous in comparison. To align its policy closer with its neighbouring councils, the Council increased its threshold. The Council said it had consulted with foster carers through its liaison group and sent out surveys to foster carers. The Council was also transparent and confirmed that part of the rationale for the increase was also to make a saving.
9. An investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault. The Council is entitled to make decisions regarding its policies. In this case, the Council has explained its reasons for the change in policy and the factors it had considered prior to making its decision. As there is insufficient evidence of fault in the decision making process, the Ombudsman cannot find fault with the decision itself.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman