Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the outcome of the statutory procedure for complaints about children’s services. This is because there is insufficient evidence that the outcome is so flawed as to warrant our intervention.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, complains that the Council has declined to implement the recommendations made by the Review Panel considering her complaint about fault on the Council’s part while she was a foster carer.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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. Ms X was a friends and family foster carer for two children placed with her by the Court. She complained about what she saw as fault on the part of social workers and a lack of support from the Council.
6. The Council responded to the complaint under the statutory procedure for complaints about children’s services. The three stages of the procedure were completed and the complaint was upheld in part. It is not for the Ombudsman to reinvestigate the complaint. Rather, it is for us to take a view on whether the matter was properly considered and whether the outcomes are reasonable and defensible.
7. At the final stage of the complaint procedure, the Review Panel made seven recommendations. Ms X’s complaint is that the Council has not accepted all seven. Specifically, she complains about the response to Recommendation 2. Councils are not bound to accept recommendations made by Review Panels. The key question for the Ombudsman in this case is whether the Council’s decision not to do so amounts to fault.
8. The Review Panel recommended that the Council should offer Ms X a further independent Stage 2 investigation, contacting named people and CAFCASS, to provide further clarity on the issues raised. The Council has agreed to reconsider elements of the complaint and to contact the recommended people and CAFCASS. It has not explicitly offered to conduct a full Stage 2 investigation. Ms X does not regard this as sufficient.
9. There is a difference between what the Review Panel recommended and what the Council has offered to do. However, the Council has offered further scrutiny of the matters in dispute. The difference between the recommendation and what the Council has offered to do is not so significant as to warrant investigation by the Ombudsman. There are therefore insufficient grounds for us to criticise the Council’s position, or intervene to substitute an alternative.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because the outcome of the statutory complaint procedure is not so flawed as to warrant our intervention.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman