The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about backdated Child Arrangement Order payments. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the decision-making process.
The complaint
Miss X complained that the Council should have provided her with backdated payments from the date of when she took on the care of a child relative.
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).)
We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council’s relevant policy and procedure documents.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Miss X began caring for her child relative in late 2023 under a Child Arrangement Order (CAO) when the previous carer moved overseas. This was arranged privately, and the Council were not involved.
A CAO is made by a court to regulate the arrangements regarding where a child should live or spend time with. It gives parental responsibility to the holder which can be sole or shared with others. Councils have discretionary powers to provide financial support to people who hold a CAO.
The Council began paying Miss X a means-tested, discretionary CAO allowance in early 2024 following receipt of information and subsequent completion of a financial assessment. This was in line with its CAO policy.
The Council has also offered an additional discretionary payment to Miss X to contribute to resettlement costs.
It is not our role to say what decisions the Council should make. We cannot comment on discretionary decisions unless there is evidence of fault in the decision-making process. The Council has followed its own policy in relation to issuing CAO payments and reached a decision it is entitled to, so we cannot say it is at fault even though I recognise Miss X disagrees with its decision.
Final decision
We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint further because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the decision-making process to justify our involvement.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman