The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decisions regarding Ms X as a foster carer. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our further involvement.
The complaint
Ms X said what social workers reported about her was inaccurate. She said the Council has failed to correct these reports despite her providing evidence they are wrong. She said these reports were used to de-register her as a foster care and were passed on to the Council’s safeguarding officer (LADO). She said she has therefore been unable to work with children.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
There was a recent Independent Review Mechanism (IRM) panel hearing to consider the Council’s decision that Ms X should not continue to foster children. The Council provided a confidential copy of the record at my request. It is not my role to re-consider the IRM panel’s decision or to reach my own. The IRM is a function of the Department for Education, so if Ms X wishes to complain about the IRM panel she would need to approach the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO).
The record of the IRM panel hearing show the members considered both Ms X’s case and the Council’s case, questioning both parties. It also shows the panel members discussed the matter in depth after both parties had given evidence. It decided there were matters alleged against Ms X that were not in dispute, such as taking a foster child on a trip after the child left her care without telling the Council, when she had been told not to contact the child. It also noted that Ms X’s evidence at the hearing suggested she had continued to contact the child. It also found the evidence provided by social workers was consistent with its own experience of Ms X in the hearing. It decided Ms X lacked some personal attributes essential for a foster carer that she would be unlikely to attain, and there were sufficient grounds that she should not continue as such. While Ms X says the reports about her were inaccurate, the evidence presented to the IRM panel was sufficient for it to reach the decision it did. Investigation by us of the same matters would be unlikely to lead to a different finding.
Such a finding would have to be reported to the LADO, so there was no fault in the Council doing so.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman