Accessibility links

1
Language selection

Agenda item

INVESTIGATION REPORT BY THE PUBLIC SERVICES OMBUDSMAN FOR WALES

Minutes:

The Corporate Director, Social Services and Wellbeing introduced Jo Lloyd-Jones, Team Manager of Fostering Teams to the Committee. The Corporate Director then shared with the Committee an investigation report issued by the Public Services Ombudsman’s office regarding a complaint and found maladministration by the Council. 

 

Mr N was a looked after child with Bridgend County Borough Council and was placed with his foster carers when he was a toddler.  Mr N was a fully integrated member of the family, enjoying 14 successful years in placement. The placement broke down in 2014 and Mr N subsequently approached the Council to obtain further information about savings that his foster parents had made on his behalf.  Mr N complained that:

 

·         the Council had not managed his savings properly and in accordance with its policy;

·         some of his savings were used, without consultation with him, to pay for trips for which he should have received a special allowance;

·         the savings he received in January 2015 were substantially less than he believed they should have been.

In accordance with Section 17 of the Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Act 2005, the Council published a copy of the report and made it available for inspection at its offices for a period of 3 weeks from 6th December 2016.

 

The Council acknowledged the report and accepted all of the Ombudsman’s recommendations with the exception of recommendation (b) – to make a payment to Mr N of £3,310 to reimburse him for savings that had not been made for him during his time in foster care. The Council’s position was that Mr N had not suffered injustice or hardship in consequence of this matter. Mr N was provided with the remainder of his savings and the interest accrued. Mr N had been on annual holidays with his foster care family, he had been supported to join the local rugby team and go on rugby tour, which his foster carer also had to attend to enable him to go. Mr N enjoyed attending Cardiff City football matches for which he had a season ticket and had travelled on activity and school trips throughout his time in foster care. In the one year which was referred to, Mr N went on rugby tour, attended the Local Authority Selium (outward bound activities) trip, a school trip and also the family holiday.

 

The Council took its role and responsibilities as a corporate parent for looked after children extremely seriously, however, there was currently no legal requirement or national policy or guidance in place regarding savings for looked after children, aside from the establishment of a junior ISA and, therefore, the Council could not enforce the need for foster carers to provide savings for looked after children and indeed could not terminate their services as a foster carer if they chose not to save for their looked after child.  Bridgend foster carers were encouraged to save for looked after children for whom they provided care. Foster carers participated in regular supervision with allocated supervising social workers and had to account for the expenditure of the basic allowance provided.

 

The Council had ascertained from other local authorities that there was no mandatory savings policy in place, all foster carers were merely encouraged to either save themselves on behalf of children or encourage children from whom they provide care to save themselves.  The Welsh Government ‘National Minimum Maintenance Allowances for Foster Carers 2014-2017’ made no mention of pocket money or the amount to be set aside in saving.  Furthermore, the National Fostering Network which worked in partnership with Welsh Government and which was the charity considered to be the essential network for foster care did not have a policy or expectation in place in respect of savings. 

 

BCBC had raised the issue of savings for Looked After Children (LAC) in a variety of arenas; Welsh Government, South Wales Fostering Managers meeting, Fostering Network and with leads for the National Fostering Framework. Feedback received from the Fostering Network resulted in them offering to assist in advocating for or pursuing any outcomes/actions of the above on behalf of Local Authorities to Welsh Government.

 

The Ombudsman recommended that the report be shared with the Corporate Parenting Committee and that the Committee consider the arrangements it deemed most appropriate in respect of long term savings for LAC while encouraging them to save from pocket money.  In doing so, the Council should have regard to the following: its duty to act as a corporate parent to give LAC the best possible start in life and other local authority schemes

 

The Council had provided a £250 cheque to Mr N in compensation for the way his complaint was handled as recommended by the Ombudsman.

 

A Member referred to the final point raised by the Ombudsman relating to what would happen if the Council failed to comply with recommendation (b) in full within two months of his report ie by 21 January 2017. 

 

The Corporate Director, Operational & Partnership Services explained the current position. BCBC had what he considered a good relationship with the Office of the Ombudsman and this was due at least in part in the Authority being open and willing to accept when it had got things wrong. In the present circumstances the Authority had accepted the Ombudsman’s findings but on one issue there was disagreement.  If Members did not agree with the Ombudsman’s recommendations then the Ombudsman could issue a further report. The Corporate Director, Operational & Partnership Services explained that he had considered Judicial Review but the Ombudsman could not force BCBC to comply with the recommendations and therefore it would not be in the public interest on this occasion.

 

He reported that the Ombudsman had recognised this raised issues at local, regional and national levels about LAC and their savings and welcomed the fact that this was now on the agenda for discussion at national level.  However he considered that  in recognising that this was a national issue it was wrong to seek to deal with it at a local level when no statute or statutory guidance existed. He considered it unfortunate that the issue had arisen but that the Authority should not accept a finding that it did not agree with It was important to maintain a good relationship with the Ombudsman but on this occasion, it would be helpful if he reconsidered this point.

 

The Corporate Director, Social Services and Wellbeing explained that there had been a meeting with the Ombudsman and a BCBC legal representative following receipt of the report where the matter had been discussed at length. They had failed to come to any agreement at that time.  

 

A Member stated that he was confused by the Ombudsman’s report and that there appeared to be more than one person with access to the savings account and a lack of written evidence. He believed that as a gesture of goodwill, it would be appropriate to make a payment of £1100, to cover the two school trips. The Corporate Director, Operational & Partnership Services explained that the determination had been made and was no longer open to negotiation. An offer of compensation had been made during the conversations with the Ombudsman’s office.

 

A Member raised the issue that not all foster carers could afford to save for their own children and this could be an issue if a looked after child was treated differently. This could also set a precedent and result in other claims against the Council. He also asked who had the authority to make decisionswithin the Authority. 

 

The Corporate Director, Operational & Partnership Services confirmed that he had the power to settle litigation however this issue was being considered by this Cabinet Committee and therefore it was for the Committee to determine the matter before it.

 

Members were concerned that any offer of payment could set a precedent and the Corporate Director, Social Services and Wellbeing confirmed that correspondence had been received from another child based on the Ombudsman’s report.

 

A Member raised queries with the Ombudsman’s report in particular point (f) which recommended that the Corporate Parent Cabinet Committee consider arrangements for long term savings whilst recognising in another point that foster carers had no legal obligation to provide savings for LAC even though it was regarded as good practice. He was concerned that this was an extra responsibility for foster carers and could deter existing and new foster carers.

 

A Member was concerned that the family was being vilified for treating the child as a family member. Foster carers should be encouraged to act as parents and there was no suggestion that they had benefited personally.

 

Concerns were raised about statements in the report regarding the difference between guidance and policy and another stating that in the absence of quantifiable evidence, benefit of the doubt had been given to the more vulnerable party. 

 

The Corporate Director, Operational & Partnership Services confirmed that the Ombudsman could produce a further report which would be public and published. If the Committee was not in agreement with the Ombudsman then the Authority would produce a full explanation of its disagreement for publication. He could not confirm that the authority would be given an opportunity to respond before the report was published. Members suggested that the Corporate Director, Social Services and Wellbeing write to WG asking for a response to this matter and also to contact the National Fostering Network.

 

The Team Manager, Fostering Teams confirmed that this matter was on the Agenda for the next National Fostering Network meeting. Savings for LAC did need to be considered but there was a duty of care to foster carers who had raised concerns.

 

The Leader referred to the need to consider arrangements in respect of long term savings for LAC and suggested that this follows engagement with foster carers and the National Fostering Network and that savings be considered in the wider context.

 

An Invitee moved an amendment that a one off goodwill payment of £1100 be made to Mr N on this occasion. The Invitee was advised that he could not move an amendment. Members of the committee discussed the suggestion and agreed that on the basis that the Ombudsman had determined his requirements, they would not move the amendment.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the Corporate Parenting Committee:

 

·                    Noted the Ombudsman’s report attached as Appendix A;

·                    Had considered the arrangements it deemed most appropriate in respect of long term savings for LAC while encouraging them to save from pocket money, in light of engagement with foster carers and the National Fostering Framework;

·                       Endorsed the Action Plan attached as Appendix B;

·                    Supported Officers in raising and pursuing  the   issue of savings for looked after children with the Fostering Network, within the work streams of the National Fostering Framework and with Welsh Government and requested a report back to Committee when the work had been completed

·                                           Requested that the Corporate Director,    Social Services and Wellbeing write to  WG asking for a response to this matter

·                                Authorised the Chair the Chair of the Committee to provide the Ombudsman’s Office with details of the Committee’s decision.

Supporting documents:

 

A to Z Search

  1. A
  2. B
  3. C
  4. D
  5. E
  6. F
  7. G
  8. H
  9. I
  10. J
  11. K
  12. L
  13. M
  14. N
  15. O
  16. P
  17. Q
  18. R
  19. S
  20. T
  21. U
  22. V
  23. W
  24. X
  25. Y
  26. Z