Former Milton Keynes foster child seeks compensation after being abused by his fosterer

Craig (not his real name) was placed in the foster home in Milton Keynes when he was 15.

He ran away after three months and later the foster father was convicted at Luton Crown Court of indecent assault and sexual offences towards both Craig and another boy.

The man served four and a half years in jail.

Now, years later, at the age of 43, Craig has recruited lawyers Bolt Burdon Kemp to launch a legal battle for compensation from the council that placed him in foster care.

He hopes to secure compensation plus an apology for the “horrific abuse” he was sugjected to, say the lawyers,.

“He has suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and alcohol dependence syndrome as a result of the abuse,” they said.

However, Buckinghamshire Council and Milton Keynes City Council are both denying liability for the abuse. It happened in 1996, a year before Milton Keynes split from Buckinghamshire County Council and became its own local authority.

Neither will claim responsibility for this abuse, and both are named as defendants in Craig’s case, say the lawyers.

Thomas Beale, Partner at Bolt Burdon Kemp is representing Craig and two other individuals, known as SJX and CRX, who were also abused as children in foster care – by a different perpretrator - and are now encountering the same problem regarding local authority liability.

They were all abused while under the care of Buckinghamshire County Council, prior to the council split in 1997.

Mr Beale says this “finger pointing” between Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes is causing an unnecessary delay to the case and creating a huge amount of distress for his clients.

He said: “Normally speaking, a case like this is relatively straight-forward from a legal perspective. However, as both Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes Councils refuse to admit liability, they are dragging Craig and my two other clients through years of needless and traumatising litigation, which could be resolved if they took a sensible and compassionate approach.

"By pointing the finger at each other, they are making things much worse for my clients and letting them down all over again. Theirapproach lacks empathy and understanding and fails to recognise the human impact of their corporate approach.”

A trial in Craig’s case has now been scheduled for a date in March or April, 2025.

Craig said: “My abuser got four and a half years, but I was given a life sentence. I am so frustrated by the delay and the fact that neither local authority is willing to take responsibility for what happened to me. An apology from the local authority, acknowledging what happened would mean so much to me, but sadly feels out of reach at the moment. The longer this case drags on, the longer it takes me to move on with my life.

“I would say to any survivor of abuse – you do end up with a life sentence, but there is help out there if you feel able to speak out.”

In its defence, Milton Keynes City Council denies it placed the Claimant with the foster family. It states its predecessor in title at the time of the alleged abuse, Milton Keynes Borough Council, was a non-metropolitan district council and did not perform social services functions. Social services functions in the relevant area and at the relevant time were performed by Buckinghamshire County Council.

According to Milton Keynes City Council, “it has not assumed legal liabilities from that now defunct Buckinghamshire County Council.”

Buckinghamshire Council states that in April 1997 Milton Keynes Borough Council became known as Milton Keynes Council, a unitary authority with social services functions. It denies it has any responsibility or liability in respect of the claimant’s period of time in foster care.

In its defence, Buckinghamshire Council states that in the course of its transition to self-governance, Milton Keynes City Council confirmed and agreed with Buckinghamshire Council that it “would satisfy all liabilities, historic and otherwise arising from the exercise and discharge within the borough of duties under the Local Government Act 1972.”