Council failed to follow proper procedure when it placed child with grandparents, Ombudsman finds

An investigation by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has found a failure by Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council to follow proper procedure when it placed a child in the care of his grandparents, alongside a failure to provide clear information, explanations and financial support.

To remedy the injustice caused, the council was recommended to pay the couple the connected person allowance for the full period their grandchild was in their care - spanning from 2022 to 2025 - including interest.

The couple behind the complaint, Mr and Mrs X, complained to the Ombudsman about the local authority’s actions since it placed their grandson in their care in August 2022.

Alongside the lack of appropriate financial support, the couple complained about poor communication and a “lack of consistency” regarding their grandson's placement with them.

They complained that the council wrongly decided, seven months after placing their grandson in their care, that it was a “private family arrangement”.

Outlining the background to the case, the Ombudsman said Mr and Mrs X’s grandson (Y) came to live with them in August 2022.

Y’s parents, (Mr C and Ms D), are separated and prior to going to live with his grandparents, Y had at times lived with either Mr C or Ms D.

In June 2022, Y was made subject to a Child Protection Plan under grounds of emotional abuse. Y was also deemed a Child in Need by virtue of his disabilities.

On 22 August 2022, Mr C told the council he was unable to care for Y and wanted him to go into care.

On 24 August 2022, Y ran away from Mr C and went to his maternal grandmother (Ms E)’s home. Y did not want to return to Mr C’s home and Ms D said she was unable to care for Y.

The council’s records show a social worker contacted Mr C on 26 August 2022 to explain the urgency of the situation and asked if he could think of any family member who could care for Y on an emergency basis.

Mr C agreed to call Mr and Mrs X to see if they could care for Y over the weekend. Mr C subsequently told the social worker Mr and Mrs X had agreed to care for Y over the weekend and would “consider caring for Y long term” as the family did not want Y to go into care.

A case discussion between the social worker and their manager on 7 September 2022 notes Y was placed in Mr and Mrs X’s care on an “emergency basis” when Mr C refused to have him return to his care.

In December 2022, Mr and Mrs X, who were still looking after Y, raised concerns that they had not received any financial support and were struggling to manage. In addition to the extra cost of caring for Y, their household income had also reduced as Mrs X had had to give up work to care for Y.

Following an escalation in Y’s behaviour over the Christmas period, Mr and Mrs X told the council they were struggling to cope, and asked for support.

On 29 June 2023, Mr and Mrs X made a formal complaint. They noted the council had arranged for Y to come and stay with them on 26 August 2022 as an emergency placement as the only other alternative was for Y to be taken into care. Mr and Mrs X said the social worker had called them on 31 July 2022 and asked if they could visit to discuss Mr and Mrs X looking after Y long term.

When they explained Mrs X would have to give up work they said the social worker explained it would be s20 accommodation and they would receive a payment for looking after Y, so they would not lose out financially.

Mr and Mrs X said a second social worker then told them they would receive foster payments which would be backdated. They began the fostering process and attended some courses and also received some advice regarding benefits.

Mr and Mrs X complained they were then told in February 2023 that they could no longer foster Y as “proper procedure had not been followed”. They said the council told them the s20 paperwork had not been signed and it was now “too late to pursue this”.

The council responded to Mr and Mrs X’s complaint on 15 September 2023. It noted the information provided was appropriate and correct in terms of payment of a fostering allowance, if Y was a looked after child. However, as Y’s father did not agree to Y being accommodated as a child in care and both parents told the council they would “continue to exercise their parental responsibility”, this was a private arrangement.

Mr and Mrs X disputed Y was not a looked after child and that this was a private arrangement. They progressed their complaint through stages two and three of the statutory complaint procedure.

The stage two investigation identified three heads of complaint. The investigation upheld complaints 1 and 2 and partially upheld complaint 3.

As complaints 1 and 2 were upheld, the stage three panel only reviewed complaint 3. The panel agreed the complaint should be partially upheld as Mr and Mrs X had received some support.

The stage three panel made a number of recommendations, which the council agreed to, but Mr and Mrs X remained dissatisfied.

Analysing the case, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman concluded that the council’s failure to follow “proper process” combined with poor record keeping and a shortage of staff/ staff absences meant there was a lack of clarity regarding Y’s legal status.

The Ombudsman added however it was "clear” that the arrangement was not solely a private family arrangement.

The Ombudsman continued: “The council has offered to make connected person payments for the period 26 August 2022 to 15 March 2023. While this is to be welcomed, I do not consider this fully addresses the situation Mr and Mrs X then found themselves in.

“But for the Council’s failings I consider it more likely than not that Y would have been in Mr and Mrs X’s care from August 2022 as a looked after child. Either under a s20 agreement, or alternatively, given Mr C and Ms D’s changing views on this, under formal care proceedings. This would have meant Mr and Mrs X would receive ongoing financial support.”

Based on the evidence, the Ombudsman concluded the local authority should pay Mr and Mrs X connected person payments for the entire time Y was in their care.

In light of the Ombudsman’s findings, the council agreed to:

• apologise to Mr and Mrs X for the distress, anxiety and financial difficulties caused by its failure to follow proper procedure and provide appropriate support when it placed Y in their care.
• pay Mr and Mrs X the connected person allowance for the full period Y was in their care - 26 August 2022 to 8 February 2025, to include interest.
• provide evidence of how it has complied with the recommendations made by the stage two report and stage three panel.

Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council has been approached for comment.

Lottie Winson