Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain that although the Council agreed to provide adoption support for life for Miss Y and Miss Z it wrongly stopped allowance payments for Miss Y and reduced payments for Miss Z without any notice or communication with the family. The statutory complaints investigation upheld all of Mr and Mrs X’s complaints and found fault with the Council's actions. These faults caused significant distress and uncertainty for Mr and Mrs X and detrimentally affected their wellbeing. The Council should apologise, make payments and take action to remedy this.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X complain that although the Council agreed to provide adoption support for life for Miss Y and Miss Z it wrongly stopped allowance payments for Miss Y and reduced payments for Miss Z without any notice or communication with the family. This caused significant distress and uncertainty.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about 'maladministration' and 'service failure'. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as 'injustice'. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. We have the power to make recommendations to remedy injustice sustained as a result of maladministration and publish guidance which sets out our approach to remedies. When someone has suffered an injustice, we try to put them back in the position they would have been had that error not occurred. Where that is not possible we may recommend a symbolic payment, but it is not our role to assess economic losses or award compensation. This is a function for the courts. We have no jurisdiction to act as a court would or resolve legal disputes.
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)
5. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Adoption Support Services Regulations 2005

8. The Adoption Support Services Regulations 2005 set out the circumstances in which an adoption allowance may be paid to adopters. This includes where it is necessary to ensure the adoptive parent can look after the child or where the child needs special care. The adoption statutory guidance says the overall aim is the adoption of a child or continuing adoption arrangements should not be prevented because of lack of financial support.
9. When deciding how much financial support to provide, the council should carry out a financial assessment. The adoption allowance should be reviewed at least annually, and a fresh financial assessment completed.
10. An additional adoption allowance payment may be agreed to meet a specific need for a specific period of time. Councils are also able to agree exceptional payments which may be necessary in exceptional circumstances. The payment of an Adoption Allowance is discretionary and is subject to assessment and based on the individual needs of the child. Such allowances are means tested.
11. Regulation 11 sets out the circumstances in which the financial support ceases to be payable. This includes the child’s 18th birthday unless they continue in full time education or training, when it may continue until the end of the course or training.

Statutory complaints procedure

12. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. The accompanying statutory guidance, ‘Getting the Best from Complaints’, explains councils’ responsibilities in more detail. We also published practitioner guidance on the procedures, setting out our expectations.
13. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
14. If a complainant is not happy with a council’s stage one response, they can ask that it is considered at stage two. At this stage of the procedure, councils appoint an investigating officer (IO) to look into the complaint and an independent person (IP) who is responsible for overseeing the investigation and ensuring its independence.
15. Following the investigation, a senior manager (the adjudicating officer) at the council should carry out an adjudication. The officer considers the IO report and any report from the IP. They decide what the council’s response to the complaint will be, including what action it will take. The adjudicating officer should then write to the complainant with a copy of the investigation report, any report from the independent person and the adjudication response.
16. The whole stage two process should be completed within 25 working days but guidance allows an extension for up to 65 working days where required.
17. If a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of the stage two investigation, they can ask for a stage three review by an independent panel. The council must hold the panel within 30 working days of the date of request, and then issue a final response within 20 working days of the panel hearing.
18. If a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it unless we consider the investigation was flawed. However, we may look at whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation.

What happened here

19. Mr and Mrs X adopted two sisters, Miss Y and Miss Z, in 2008. Miss Y and Miss Z both have a rare neurodegenerative condition. The life expectancy of children with this condition is around 15 years. Mr and Mrs X say that when they adopted Miss Y and Miss Z the Council agreed to pay an adoption allowance of £250 per week for each child for their lifetime.
20. The Council did not assess or review Miss Y and Miss Z’s support for 10 years.
21. In 2020, shortly after Miss Y’s 18th birthday, the Council stopped her adoption allowance. Mr and Mrs X contacted the Council to raise concerns about the implications of this and in November 2020 the Council reinstated the payments and increased them to £300 per week in recognition of the need. Mr and Mrs X say there was no discussion about the payment at that time, and the Council did not inform them it was time limited.
22. The Council stopped Miss Y’s allowance again in December 2022, without warning. When Mr and Mrs X contacted the Council, it reinstated the payments for a period of four weeks and told them the payments could not continue. Mr and Mrs X say the Council did not reassess or discuss Miss Y’s needs with them.
23. Mr and Mrs X made a formal complaint in January 2023 asking for Miss Y’s payments to be reinstated and for confirmation Miss Z’s payments would not be stopped. They told the Council that stopping the payments had had a detrimental impact on their family circumstances and caused additional stress and financial difficulties.
24. The Council acknowledged Mr and Mrs X’s complaint but did not respond substantively. Mr and Mrs X chased the Council for a response in March 2023. The Council’s response noted lifetime post adoption support was not included in Miss Y and Miss Z’s post adoption support plan. It said financial support was only agreed for three years post adoption, with lump sums for purchasing a vehicle and adaptations to their home.
25. The Council acknowledged it had not always completed annual reviews, but a review had taken place in November 2022. This had identified that Miss Y's post adoption support should cease as she was over 18 and that Miss Z’s would be reduced following a financial assessment.
26. As Mr and Mrs X should have received 28 days’ notice of the cessation or any changes to the financial support the Council reinstated Miss Y’s support for a further 28 days and restored Miss Z’s support to the previous level while the complaint was investigated.
27. The Council confirmed Miss Z’s financial support would continue at a rate of £305.50 until her 18th birthday and then end in accordance with legislation.
28. Mr and Mrs X were not satisfied with the Council’s response and asked for their complaint to progress to a stage 2 investigation. They disputed any agreement was made for financial support to be paid for just 3 years. Mr and Mrs X were fostering Miss Y and Miss Z prior to adopting them and said they would have made different decisions if they had been told financial support would only last three years.
29. Mr and Mrs X’s complaint progressed through stage 2 and stage 3 of the statutory complaint process. The stage 3 panel did not consider the stage 2 investigation report stood up to scrutiny and recommended the Council appoint a new stage 2 investigation team by 5 January 2024.
30. The new stage two investigation agreed the following heads of complaint:
1. the adoption allowance payments for Miss Y should not have been stopped as the local authority had promised in 2009 that support for both Miss Y and Miss Z would be for life.
2. the Council have not completed reviews of the adoption allowance, as set out in “The Adoption Support Services Regulations 2005.”
3. Miss Z’s adoption allowance payment has been changed by the Council without any explanation why.
4. having been advised that the adoption payments for Miss Y and Miss Z are not lifelong, Miss Y’s has been stopped and that Miss Z’s will be stopped when she turns eighteen, and the Council have not supported them or provided any guidance or options that will enable them to care for the sisters in the future.
31. The stage 2 investigation obtained archived records, not available to the previous investigation and upheld all four complaints. It supported Mr and Mrs X’s desired outcomes of:
• reinstating Miss Y’s lifelong payments, backdated to when they stopped; and
• Miss Z’s payments to continue to be paid lifelong following her 18th birthday.
32. It said the Council should consider whether financial redress should be awarded in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on good practice and remedies.
33. The investigation recommended the Council:
• make a payment to Mr and Mrs X to acknowledge the distress and time and trouble of having to go through another investigation;
• calculate a financial remedy that takes account the lack of annual review between 2009 and 2019 and the loss of uplifts in support payments, including interest;
• a good will payment to recognise the lack of reviews from 2009 to 2019;
• ensure staff have adequate training and support to ensure complaints are responded to in a careful and compassionate way
• undertake a formal review with input from adult social care and health services where the family live. This should include a detailed financial assessment.
34. The Council accepted the stage 2 investigations findings in relation to complaints 2 and 4 but did not uphold complaint 1 and only partially upheld complaint 3. In relation to the recommendations the Council agreed to undertake a formal review and include a detailed financial assessment.
35. The Council also agreed to carry out a financial reconciliation to identify if any additional allowance is owed to Mr and Mrs X due to the lack of annual reviews between 2009 and 2019. It said this review would be completed by 29 November 2024.
36. In addition the Council agreed to make a good will payment in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance.
37. The stage 3 panel reviewed complaints 1 and 3 and unanimously upheld both. They were satisfied the Council had agreed to pay lifelong allowances and that Miss Z’s allowance had been changed without notice. The panel did not recommend the Council reinstate the lifelong allowances. It recommended:
• the Council improve its historic record keeping and the accessibility of case files;
• the family receive an emergency payment to cover the shortfall in allowances incurred in the previous 13 months to ensure the family had sufficient funds to support Miss Y and Miss Z and to address some of the debts incurred due to the funds being stopped without the required review;
• payments for Miss Z should be reinstated to £305 per week until the review is complete
• that mediations are considered for relevant cases going forward;
• that more care is taken in ensuring the needs of children/ vulnerable adults are being met during the complaints process; and
• that the review may conclude the family have received more allowance than they are entitled to but it would not be natural justice to seek to claw back any overpayments considering the Council had failed to undertake their statutory reviews as required.
38. The Council considered the Panel’s findings and said it would make all due payments before Christmas and reinstate Miss Z’s payments of £305 per week until her 18th birthday. It also confirmed it would not claw back or deduct any overpayments.
39. In addition the Council said it had made arrangements for ensuring historic records were kept securely and that access was manageable. It also confirmed that mediation was being considered for relevant cases and that it was reviewing the complaint process.
40. The Council carried out the recommended care needs and financial assessments for both Miss Y and Miss Z in early December 2024. The records of the assessment note Miss Y and Miss Z have a 24 hour a day seven days a week care package funded by the NHS. They require total care and support at all times and as they are ventilator dependent. There are 49 carers currently on the package.
41. The financial assessment notes Mr and Mrs X are struggling financially to meet the bills and outgoing expenses associated with caring for Miss Y and Miss Z without the adoption allowance. They are behind on their mortgage payments and their electricity bills are around £700 to £900 per month. There are also significant hidden costs as they effectively provide a work space for a large number of carers and have to replace items that wear out more quickly because of the level of use.
42. Mr and Mrs X have asked us to investigate their concerns. They say the way the matter has been dealt with is totally unacceptable and has had a detrimental impact on their family. The Council has made decisions without any consultation or communication with Mr and Mrs X, and the current financial situation leaves them at risk of losing their home. Mr and Mrs X feel the Council agreed to adoption payments for the duration of Miss Y and Miss Z’s lives as they were not expected to live as long as they have.
43. Miss Y and Miss Z are on life support ventilators 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and will be for the rest of their lives. Mr and Mrs X would like the Council to reinstate and backdate the adoption allowances for both Miss Y and Miss Z and confirm they will be paid for the duration of their lives.
44. In response to my enquiries the Council does not accept that it agreed to pay lifetime adoption allowances for Miss Y and Miss Z. It says this is on the basis adoption supports allowances can only be made up until the child is 18. The Council says Adult Services in the area where Miss Y and Miss Z reside are responsible for assessing ongoing support needs.
45. It says that social care records have improved since Miss Y and Miss Z’s adoption and case auditing is routine practice. The Council has also carried out an internal review of the effectiveness of controls relating to payment and monitoring of Adoption and Special Guardianship Allowances. The Council says it has used the findings to improve processes/practices where identified.
46. The Council has made a back dated emergency payment to cover the shortfall in allowances for Miss Z as recommend by the stage 3 panel.
47. Although the Council agreed to complete a financial reconciliation of allowances between 2009 and 2019 by 29 November 2024, it did not meet this time frame. The Council has now completed this reconciliation and says it paid £4,620.38 in respect of backdated allowances between 2010 and 2019, plus compound interest in October 2025.
48. There is no evidence that the Council has made the payment agreed at stage 2 to acknowledge the distress and time and trouble Mr and Mrs X have been put to or the goodwill payment.

Analysis

49. The statutory children’s complaints procedure was set up to provide children, young people and those involved in their welfare with an independent response to their concerns. Because of this, if a council has investigated something under the statutory procedure, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it.
50. We may decide to look at whether there were any significant flaws in the stage two investigation or stage three review panel that could call the findings into question. We may also consider whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation and review panel.
51. There were clearly delays in the complaint process and concerns that the initial stage 2 investigation report did not stand up to scrutiny. These delays and failings amount to fault, but I am satisfied the subsequent stage 2 investigation and stage three panel were properly conducted. The flaws in the initial investigation would not call the subsequent investigation findings into question.
52. Mr and Mrs X have completed the statutory complaint process and their complaints have all been upheld. I do not consider it necessary to reinvestigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint, but consider our intervention is warranted regarding the remedy. Despite agreeing the stage 2 and 3 recommendations, the Council has not completed them all. In addition, I am not persuaded the recommendations are sufficient to remedy the injustice to Mr and Mrs X.
53. Although both the stage 2 investigation and the stage 3 panel upheld Mr and Mrs X’s complaints, and the stage 2 investigation supported Mr and Mrs X’s desired outcome, neither recommended the reinstatement of lifetime allowances.
54. As stated above, the Council have confirmed to us that it does not accept that it agreed to pay adoption allowances for life for both Miss Y and Miss Z. We find this to be a fault as it is not open to the Council to disagree with the findings of the Panel. However, even if the Council did agree that this agreement was reached, it is clear that the Council is unwilling and/or unable to continue to honour this agreement. The Adoption Support Services Regulations 2005 specify that a council is prevented from paying adoption financial support beyond a young person’s 18th birthday unless they are in full time education, which is not the case here.
55. The Regulations do not provide any discretionary basis for payments to continue beyond a young person’s 18th birthday.
56. As a result, there is clearly a dispute between the Council and Mr and Mrs X as to whether or not the Council can or should lawfully make these payments for life. We have no power to intervene and resolve a dispute of this nature and so we do not consider it appropriate to make recommendations that the Council continue to pay the allowance for Miss Y and Miss Z’s lifetime. This is because any such recommendation would be to asking the Council to take action outside the scope of the Regulations and compel it to make discretionary payments where there is no statutory basis to do so. This would be to step outside the role of the Ombudsman and into the role of a court.
57. However, it is clear there is significant injustice arising from the Council’s faults which have not been fully remedied through the statutory procedure. In these circumstances we can ask the Council to make to make a payment to symbolise and acknowledge the distress or difficulties Mr and Mrs X have been put to.
58. Mr and Mrs X agreed to adopt Miss Y and Miss Z based on assurances from the Council that they would receive lifetime allowances. Had they known the Council could not honour this commitment they may well have made different decisions. They may have continued to foster Miss Y and Miss Z rather than adopt them. And would have known about and been able to plan for the impact the cessation of the allowances would have on the family’s finances. The uncertainty and loss of opportunity has caused significant distress and worry and has detrimentally affected Mr and Mrs X’s wellbeing. This has not been recognised through the statutory procedure. We have therefore made a further recommendation below.
59. The Council’s failure to review the adoption allowances between 2009 and 2019 as agreed, meant there was uncertainty about whether the payments should have increased sooner. The Council has now completed this review and made payments in respect of the backdated uplifts.
60. The delays and failings in the complaint process have exacerbated Mr and Mrs X’s distress and uncertainty regarding their future. Mr and Mrs X made a complaint in January 2023, but the whole process was not completed until late December 2024. This is clearly unacceptable and amounts to fault, but the Council has not yet remedied this.
61. The Council’s response to the statutory complaint investigation is also disappointing. The stage 2 investigation and stage 3 panel both upheld all of Mr and Mrs X’s complaints. However, the Council disputes the findings and continues to assert there was no commitment to lifetime allowances. While the regulations allow the Council to respond to the panel’s recommendations, they do not permit the Council to disagree with the panel’s findings. Continuing to do so is fault causing further distress to Mr and Mrs X.
62. Our guidance on remedies states we will normally recommend a payment for distress of up to £500. We can recommend higher payments where we decide the distress was especially severe and/or prolonged, and to take account of the personal vulnerability of those affected. In this instance I consider a higher payment is appropriate in the respect of the distress Mr and Mrs X experienced as a result of the Council's failings identified through the statutory complaints procedure.

Back to top

Action

63. The Council has agreed to:
• apologise to Mr and Mrs X for the fault identified and the distress and difficulties these caused. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• pay Mr and Mrs X £2,000 to recognise the significant uncertainty, distress and difficulties they have experienced as a result of the Council’s failings identified through the statutory complaints procedure;
• pay Mr and Mrs X £500 to acknowledge the uncertainty, distress and time and trouble of having to go through a second stage 2 complaints investigation and the delays this caused. The Council agreed to make a payment during the statutory procedure but has not yet done so.
64. The Council should take this action within one month of the final decision on this complaint and provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
65. Within six weeks of the final decision on this complaint the Council has agreed to:
• review its complaint handling procedure and explain what service improvements it will make to prevent similar occurrences. Any service improvements identified should include what measures the Council will take to make sure future complaints are fully investigated and the training it will offer to its officers.
66. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

67. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman