Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide appropriate financial support when she was a kinship carer (also known as a family and friends foster carer) for her grandchildren. Ms X said she financially supported the children as well as caring for them, which had a financial impact. She said it impacted her mental health and caused unnecessary distress. We find the Council at fault, and this caused Ms X injustice. The Council will apologise and make a payment to Ms X.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council failed to provide appropriate financial support when she was a kinship carer for her grandchildren.
2. Ms X said she financially supported the children as well as caring for them. This had a financial impact. She said it impacted her mental health and caused unnecessary distress. She said it was traumatic. She felt she had no choice but to care for the grandchildren or they would be taken into state care. Ms X said it also affected her caring responsibilities for older relatives, and her other family relationships.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered the information and documents provided by Ms X and the Council. I spoke to Ms X about her complaint. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments received before I reached a final decision.
7. I considered the relevant legislation, statutory guidance, and case law, set out below. I also considered the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

Family and friends foster carers

8. Section 20 of the Children Act 1989 says councils shall provide accommodation to any child in need within their area who needs it, because:

• there is nobody with parental responsibility to care for them;
• they have been lost or abandoned; or
• the person who has been caring for them being prevented from providing suitable accommodation or care.

9. Councils need to distinguish between private arrangements made between parents and carers, and arrangements in which the child is accommodated under the Children Act 1989 and so is a looked after child. Private fostering or caring arrangements are sometimes called informal kinship care arrangements.
10. When a child needs to be accommodated, the law says councils should consider placing them with family or friends first. Friends and family foster carers can receive a fostering allowance and other practical support from the council.

What happened

11. Ms X has an adult daughter, Ms O. In 2022, the Council was worried about the safety of Ms O’s children who lived with her. The Council decided it might start care proceedings, and considered removing Ms O’s children from her care.
12. It was identified that Ms O’s mother, Ms X, may be able to care for the children if needed. The Council checked Ms X’s suitability to care for the children. It found she was suitable to care for them.
13. At a meeting, the family’s Social Worker said the plan was for Ms X to move in with Ms O. The Council decided it would not initiate care proceedings while Ms X supported close supervision of the children. The Council said if Ms X was not able to support Ms O and the children, and there were no other suitable family members to take on this role, the Council may initiate proceedings to remove the children from Ms O’s care.
14. Ms X lived with Ms O and the children for four months.
15. Ms X complained to the Council that she had not been classed as a kinship carer (or family and friends foster carer). She said she had not received any financial assistance. She said she felt forced into the role because of the care proceedings.
16. In response, the Council said it could not “identify [its] decision making”. It said this was an informal arrangement because Ms X moved in with Ms O, and Ms O remained living there with her children. It said it had discussed finances with Ms O, who remained financially responsible for the children.
17. The Council said children are not classed as in Council care when they are placed with a family member. It said Ms X did not qualify for kinship payments but it offered to assist with the costs Ms X incurred.
18. Ms X then complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

19. The Council has explained that it found its section 20 duty to Ms O’s children was not triggered. This was because Ms O was not prevented from providing either suitable care or suitable accommodation.
20. I am satisfied the Council took account of its duties to Ms O’s children under section 20. I find the Council was entitled to reach the decision that section 20 did not apply in this case. This is because the situation had not reached the point where Ms O was unable to care for the children.
21. However, I find the Council at fault for the way it communicated its position to Ms X at the time. There is an absence of contemporaneous records to show the Council was clear with Ms X that her support did not represent kinship care. This is fault. Ms X should have had a clear understanding about the nature of the support she was being asked to provide. There is no evidence to show this happened.
22. On balance, I am persuaded that Ms X believed she was being asked to provide kinship care. The factors that I find favour Ms X’s belief that she was being asked to provide kinship care are:
• the nature of the child protection concerns;
• the fact the case was being managed under the Public Law Outline process (which is a last chance for parents to make positive changes to their parenting before care proceedings are started);
• the threat of care proceedings; and,
• the referral to kinship care support services.
23. Had the Council been clearer with Ms X then she could have made a properly informed decision about providing care, as well as the costs she was willing to spend, and keeping records of her spending.
24. I find the fault here caused injustice to Ms X in that she was not able to make an informed decision. This caused unnecessary and avoidable distress, and was a lost opportunity. I also find Ms X incurred financial cost that might otherwise have been mitigated.

Back to top

Agreed action

25. Within four weeks of this decision, the Council has agreed to:
• apologise to Ms X for the unnecessary and avoidable distress caused by the fault; and,
• make a payment to Ms X of £1000. This is to remedy the unnecessary distress and the lost opportunity. In arriving at this figure, I considered the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies. I have taken into account the level of injustice caused and the circumstances of this case. I consider this amount is appropriate and proportionate to the level of injustice.
26. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making its apology.
27. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

28. I have completed my investigation. I find the Council at fault and this caused Ms X injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Ms X.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman