Summary: Mrs D complained the Council wrongly advised her in relation to becoming a level three foster carer. She says she has missed out financially because of the poor advice. We find the Council was at fault for giving Mrs D the wrong advice. The Council’s remedy from its investigation into Mrs D’s complaint does not adequately remedy her injustice. The Council has agreed to our increased recommendation to reflect Mrs D’s injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs D complained the Council wrongly advised her in relation to becoming a level three foster carer. She says she has missed out financially because of the poor advice.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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)
4. Under the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), we will share this decision with Ofsted.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Mrs D. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered information it sent in response.
6. Mrs D and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Fostering

7. Children who are looked after by a council may be placed in foster care. Carers are paid a fostering allowance when looking after children and the amount they receive will depend on the number of children placed with them, the age of the child(ren) and where they live. 

The Council’s level three fostering criteria (prior to 2022)

8. The Council recognises the skills and experience of foster carers through a skills-based award scheme. In addition to a standard fostering allowance, foster carers receive a fee which is aligned to an assessed skill level. Fosters carers are awarded level one, two or three.
9. The Council had an appraisal document before 2022 which it used to assess foster carers who wished to advance to skills level three. The document states to advance to level three the foster carer had to evidence:

• They were always available.
• They had extensive fostering experience or extensive experience with children and young people in a related professional or voluntary field.
• They had undertaken a range of complex tasks including supporting children with complex backgrounds and caring for children with complex medical needs.
• They could achieve placement stability.
• They had the skills, accommodation, and family circumstances to accommodate children with very challenging and complex needs.
• They had a good understanding and knowledge of child development.
• They could work at increased professional level.
• They were committed to ongoing learning and professional development.
• They could attend support groups.
• They could support other less experienced carers.
• They had improved outcomes for children/young people.

What happened

10. This chronology includes an overview of key events in this case and does not detail everything that happened.
11. Mrs D and her husband have worked as foster carers for the Council since 2016. The Council approved them as level two foster carers. Mrs D is the primary foster carer.
12. Mrs D and her husband started a long-term fostering placement for a child (F) in 2017.
13. The Council visited Mrs D in April 2018. Mrs D said she wanted to progress and become a level three foster carer. She said she was keen to take a more active role in wider fostering tasks. The Council noted as an action point it needed to send the relevant paperwork and go through it with Mrs D.
14. The Council held an annual review of Mrs D’s fostering in June. Mrs D repeated her request to progress to level three.
15. Mrs D’s social worker visited her in September and October. The social worker noted she would need to speak to another member of staff about the level three criteria.
16. The social worker visited Mrs D in November. She explained that due to F’s behaviour, Mrs D did not meet the criteria for level three. She said this would not always be the case as F progressed through their teenage years.
17. The Council held an annual review in May 2019. Mrs D stated she was still keen to progress to level three and she wanted to be involved in further development. The Council noted as an action point the social worker would need to provide the relevant guidelines to achieve level three. There is no evidence the social worker provided this.
18. The Council held further reviews in 2020, 2021 and 2022. It raised no concerns about Mrs D and her husband as foster carers.
19. F’s behaviour started to become more challenging and so Mrs D decided to end the placement in October 2022. As F’s needs were difficult to manage, she asked the Council to approve her as a level three foster carer in November. The Council agreed to pursue this.
20. Mrs D emailed the Council. She said despite discussing progressing to level three in 2018, nothing had materialised. She said it failed to reassess her despite her commitment to fostering and the positive feedback she received. She asked it to review her foster caring level. She also said she had changed her mind and she wanted to continue with F’s placement. The Council responded and said it would complete the relevant paperwork.
21. Mrs D did some research about progression in foster caring. She emailed the Council and said it was obvious from her research the information it gave her in 2018 was incorrect. She said in 2018 she had four years of fostering experience and she had done lots of training. She said it wrongly told her progressing to level three was based on F’s needs, when it is based on the skills of the foster carer. She said she chose not to pursue progression to level three as she was concerned it would have disrupted F’s placement.
22. Mrs D complained to the Council in December about its failure to provide her with the correct advice in 2018. She said if it had given her the correct advice, she would have completed any unmet training needs. She asked it to backdate the level three fee to her 2019 annual review.
23. Mrs D sent several chasers to the Council for a response to her complaint after it did not respond in line with the timescales set out in its complaints procedure.
24. The Council responded to Mrs D’s complaint in March 2023 and apologised for the delay. It said the social worker suggested becoming a level three foster carer was linked to F’s needs. It said this was wrong as progressing to the next level is linked to the foster carers skills. It apologised for misleading her. It also said it had learnt lessons and it would now clearly communicate with foster carers about their progression to the next level. It said it had updated the level three fostering criteria in 2022. It also said it could not agree a retrospective approval of the level three fee because while she initially asked to progress to level three in 2018 and 2019, she did not make any further requests until 2022.
25. The Council approved Mrs D’s request to progress to a level three foster carer. It backdated her pay to December 2022.
26. Mrs D referred her complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaints procedure. She said she was happy it had implemented service improvements. However, she was unhappy it had not backdated the level three fee to 2019. She said she did not pursue the matter further after 2019 because it was the social worker’s responsibility to action. She also said it told her she would jeopardise F’s placement if she chose to progress to level three. She said she decided to put F’s stability first.
27. The Council issued its final response to Mrs D’s complaint. It apologised for the delays in responding at both stages of the complaints process. It repeated its apologies for misleading her. It said it was understandable she did not continue to ask to progress to level three when it advised her the assessment was linked to the needs of the child. It said it could not backdate her progression to 2019 as it did not complete an assessment at the time. It was not possible to know what the outcome of the assessment would have been. It offered her £750 to recognise the impact it had on her.

Back to top

Analysis

28. The Council has accepted it was at fault for providing Mrs D with the wrong advice in 2018. I agree it was at fault as it wrongly told Mrs D progression to level three was based on F’s needs, rather than her skills as a foster carer. The Council has apologised, implemented service improvements, and has offered £750. My role is to consider whether this is sufficient to remedy Mrs D’s injustice.
29. Mrs D wants the Council to backdate the level three payments to her annual review in 2019. She strongly believes if the Council had acted without fault in 2018, she would have addressed any unmet training needs and then it would have approved her as a level three foster carer in 2019. I have considered the evidence and Mrs D’s points carefully. However, I do not consider, even on the balance of probabilities, I can recommend that the Council should backdate the payments. There are too many variables, and we cannot say what would have happened in 2018/2019 but for the Council’s fault. Even if Mrs D had completed any unmet training needs, the Council still may have concluded that she did not meet the level three criteria. It was the Council’s decision to make. I agree with the Council that as it did not complete an assessment at the time, we cannot know what it would have decided.
30. I welcome the Council has implemented service improvements and has apologised to Mrs D. I have considered the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies to determine whether £750 is appropriate for Mrs D’s injustice. As a result of the Council’s fault, Mrs D is left with a significant level of uncertainty and distress about what would have happened in 2018/2019. The Council also delayed responding to Mrs D’s complaint at both stages and it failed to keep her properly updated. She was put to time and trouble in chasing a response. I consider a payment of £1,000 is more appropriate. This is higher than what the Ombudsman would usually recommend but it reflects Mrs D’s injustice over an extended period.

Back to top

Agreed action

31. To address the injustice caused by fault, by 9 November 2023 the Council has agreed to pay Mrs D £1,000 to reflect her uncertainty, distress and time and trouble.
32. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above action.

Back to top

Final decision

33. There was fault by the Council, which caused Mrs D an injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendation and so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman