Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to end the complainant’s granddaughter’s foster placement. This is because the complaint has already been upheld and our intervention would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains that the Council was at fault in cancelling the agreement under which he and his wife cared for their granddaughter without notice, causing them distress and financial loss.

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:

• we would not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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. Mr and Mrs X were approved foster carers for their granddaughter, who was accommodated by the Council under Section 20 of the Children Act 1989. Mr X complains that the Council terminated the arrangement without notice or consultation. He says that the Council inaccurately claimed the young person was no longer in their care when the circumstances had not in fact changed.
6. Mr X says that due to the flawed decision that the Section 20 agreement had ended, financial support ceased and has not recommenced.
7. Mr and Mrs X made a complaint to the Council. The complaint was considered under the statutory procedure for children’s services complaints and was upheld in full. The Council accepted the findings and recommendations for procedural changes. It has apologised for the faults identified in the course of the complaints procedure and has offered symbolic payments to Mr and Mrs X and their granddaughter.
8. Mr X does not accept that the symbolic payments reflect the impact of the fault on the Council’s part. He wants the financial remedy increased and ongoing support provided for his granddaughter.
9. The Ombudsman will not normally investigate complaints which have been upheld before they come to us. It is not a good use of public money to do so. Mr X’s complaint has been considered under the statutory complaint procedure and upheld. The question for us therefore is whether investigation would add anything significant to the investigation already carried out.
10. The findings of the complaint procedure are proportionate and defensible, and the recommendations appear reasonable in the circumstances. The symbolic payments the Council has offered are broadly in line with what the Ombudsman would be likely to recommend, and our intervention would not therefore lead to a different outcome.
11. We cannot express a view on the reinstatement of fostering payments as there is no Section 20 agreement in place. The Council has indicated that a new assessment of the young person’s needs will be carried out, and this is appropriate in the circumstances of the case. If Mr X is unhappy with the progress or outcome of this assessment, his recourse would be to make a new complaint. There is no role for the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman