The childminders, a married couple in the London borough of Sutton, were awarded the money last week following their complaint that they had been unfairly treated by Sutton council, which had investigated an allegation of child abuse made against them by the mother of two children in their care. The childminders said the council had delayed telling them about the allegation, mismanaged the investigation itself and took too long, and breached their confidentiality.
The allegation was made on 31 March 1998, a month after they had passed their inspection by the council's childminding registration team. The parent told the council she was 'disturbed' by the sexual behaviour of one of her children and did not wish them to attend the childminders again.
At the time of the allegation the childminders also looked after children as foster day carers under contract from the council.
In April 1998 the council decided that a section 47 investigation should begin and that the couple be suspended as foster carers. But registration officers gave them the impression that their childminding registration had also been suspended, even though that would be unlawful.
In his summing up, Local Government Ombudsman Edward Osmotherly said the couple were not told of the cancellation of their childminding status until 15 weeks after the investigation into the abuse allegations had started, when the investigation should have taken only 15 days.
Mr Osmotherley added, 'There was unreasonable delay in the investigation into the allegation of abuse, which took seven months longer than it should have. As a result, (the childminders) were deprived of seven months' earnings and suffered unnecessary additional stress.' Sutton council agreed to pay the childminders 7,000 to compensate for their lost income and stress and anxiety. It issued a statement saying, 'The authority deeply regrets the distress that this case may have caused to the individuals concerned. However, we are satisfied we have reached a local settlement in this matter.'
Gill Haynes, chief executive of the National Childminding Association, said, 'This case demonstrates how essential it is that childminders working with sponsored children be part of childminding networks, so they have a clear model and procedures, and access to legal representation. It also shows the difficult position childminders are in under the Children Act, which has no powers of suspension, whereas under the new Care Standards Act that loophole has been closed, with powers of suspension and appeal.'
