The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: There was fault the Council told Mrs X it had created new skills banding awards, impacting on her role as a foster carer. That fault caused Mrs X an injustice because it unnecessarily raised her expectation about an increase in salary she may have benefited from. There was also fault in how the Council communicated with her about this and this caused Mrs X unnecessary inconvenience. The Council had already apologised and has agreed to take additional steps to fully remedy Mrs X’s injustice.
The complaint
Mrs X is a foster carer, and she complained the Council misled her, when it said it was introducing new skill bands, which may have meant the Council would provide her with additional salary for the role she performed. Mrs X said because the Council delayed this promise beyond its initial commitment and then did not follow it up, she has lost out financially. Mrs X also said the Council delayed sending its complaint responses.
Mrs X wanted the Council to compensate her for her financial losses.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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) When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
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) Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).
How I considered this complaint
I spoke to Mrs X and considered the information she provided.
I considered the Council’s comments and the documents it provided.
Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.
What I found
What happened In May 2023, the Council gave a presentation to Mrs X and other foster carers (carers) about various matters. As part of that presentation, it discussed ‘skills’ banding for carers.
Shortly after that presentation, the Council sent an email circular, which said it had introduced two new skill bands, for carers who were looking after children with complex needs and therapeutic needs. The band awards the Council highlighted amounted to an additional £350 and £650 per week, respectively.
The email also highlighted the Council would share further information about the relevant criteria, for which carers would then be able to discuss with their supervising social workers. The email said this would happen ‘in the coming weeks’.
In June, the Council sent a follow up email, summarising key aspects of the earlier presentation. This email said the Council was going to introduce two new skills bandings, which it would pay as an additional sum to carers existing allowances.
The email said the Council had devised a criteria which would help it assess whether a carer was eligible for the award and also that a panel would decide based upon the specific circumstances of each carer. Finally, it said it would send out the criteria and further information when the Council had finalised it.
Mrs X told me the Council gave her an update in early October, that it would send out the assessment criteria at the end of October. In mid-November, Mrs X complained because the Council had not answered some of her earlier queries about this issue and still had not sent out the information in line with its commitment.
The Council replied to Mrs X’s complaint at stage one of its complaint procedures. It apologised for its poor handling of her queries. It also told Mrs X it was wrong to have shared information about the skills band awards when it had initially done so, saying at that point it should have made it clear the Council had not fully agreed the skills bands.
The Council accepted this had raised Mrs X’ s expectations and apologised to her. It also said it was not able to start the skills banding in line with earlier commitments, saying at that stage they were still only a proposal. In late November, Mrs X escalated her complaint to stage two saying the Council had contradicted itself, by saying the plans were a proposal.
In late January, the Council sent out more information about its assessment criteria.
In early February, the Council replied to Mrs X’s stage two complaint. In its response it apologised for a delay in replying to her escalated complaint, saying it needed to gather further information.
Mrs X told me the Council have recently told her (and other carers) they are not now considering these two new skills bands.
My findings
In May 2023, the Council suggested it had created new skills banding awards, and it would release a skills criteria within a matter of weeks. This initial information also said eligible carers would see an increase in their allowances.
There was no information about when payments of these allowances would start for successful applicants and the information the Council released in June, suggested it had not finalised the skills criteria.
Nonetheless, the Council apologised it had told Mrs X about something which was due to start soon when it should not have done. That is fault and caused Mrs X an injustice. The Council have already apologised and given Mrs X an explanation.
Mrs X said because of the Council’s earlier comments, she believed she would be eligible for the increase in line with the Council’s initial offer and therefore she did not take better paid employment elsewhere.
On balance, I cannot say the Council’s fault meant that Mrs X has lost earnings, but its offer, which the Council said was premature, unnecessarily raised her expectations about a possibility.
In addition, because the Council has rescinded its consideration of an increase in line with this offer, Mrs X now has avoidable uncertainty about what she may have lost out on.
The Council had already apologised in writing and given Mrs X an explanation for this before our involvement. It has also agreed to a recommendation I made about a service improvement, which I am satisfied will fully remedy any remaining injustice Mrs X has.
Mrs X also complained about the length of time it took the Council to respond to her stage two complaint. I do not find this delay meant there was a personal injustice to Mrs X here, because the evidence shows the Council was trying to resolve Mrs X’s complaint about the assessment criteria.
Agreed action
Within one month of the date of my decision, the Council have agreed it will identify the learning from Mrs X’s complaint about due process and timescales and remind staff of its expectations on sharing information about future proposals.
The Council should provide us with evidence of these actions.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation upholding Mrs X’s complaint with a finding of fault. The Council has already taken steps to remedy Mrs X’s injustice before our involvement and has agreed to my recommendation which fully addresses any remaining injustice.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman