Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to complete property adaptations needed for the safety of a child, Y, who she cares for under a Special Guardianship Order. The Council was at fault for significant delays approving funding for the agreed building work. The Council agreed to offer a further financial remedy for the prolonged distress to Miss X and her household.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council failed to complete property adaptations needed for the safety of a child, Y, who she cares for under a Special Guardianship Order (SGO). She said the adaptations needed were confirmed by a Court Order.
2. Miss X complained the delay completing building works had a significant negative impact on her, her household, and Y.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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. As part of the investigation, I considered the complaint and the information Miss X provided.
7. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
8. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Special Guardianship Orders

9. Special Guardianship is an order made by the Family Court that places a child or young person to live with someone other than their parent(s) on a long-term basis. The person with whom a child is placed will become the child’s Special Guardian.
10. Government guidance on the Special Guardianship Regulations sets out the circumstances in which councils should provide financial support to a Special Guardian. These include situations where there is a financial obstacle to a guardianship arrangement being made, and where the child requires special care. There is no overall obligation on councils to provide support in every case in which a Special Guardianship Order (SGO) is made.

What happened

11. I have summarised below some key events leading to Miss X’s complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
12. Y was in a foster placement with Miss X when she applied for a SGO. The Council produced a special guardianship support plan on 31 October 2023. This detailed Y’s complex health needs stemming from chronic kidney disease, placing him at risk of infections and other health conditions if appropriate and timely support is not accessed.
13. As well as caring for Y, Miss X had three other children under her care. Each child had their own room, expect for Y, who shared a room with Miss X. Y needed his own room as he grew older. Bradford Children and Families Trust (the Trust) agreed to fund the cost of the conversion needed to Miss X’s home to provide suitable adaptations to care for Y.
14. Miss X obtained a SGO for Y in January 2024. The Order confirmed the Council would fund the building work needed at Miss X’s home. The Court ordered the Council to file a financial assessment plan confirming the building works.
15. The Council amended its financial assessment plan on 3 March 2024, agreeing building costs of £46,656. This was to be available to the contractor on completion of the works. The Trust wrote to Miss X on 5 March 2024 with confirmation.
16. Miss X obtained quotes for the building work, and the Trust agreed for her preferred builder to do the work. However, the work stalled because the Council identified the Trust had not followed the correct procedure for approving such works. The Council said it has approved contractors who must do the work, and it could not agree Miss X’s preferred choice as they are not on the approved list. The Council said the work itself also had to go through an internal process to be approved.
17. Miss X brought a complaint to the Trust on 8 May 2024 over delays and concerns with the process, including builder selection and payment.
18. The Trust responded to Miss X’s complaint in June 2024. It said the building work was agreed outside of its processes, which it apologised for. The process must include use of approved contractors, and this is not a quick process. It apologised for the delays and said it was progressing to approved contractors for quotes.
19. Miss X raised a stage two complaint with the Trust in September 2024, as the loft conversion work had still not started.
20. The Trust received agreement from the Council in November 2024 to accept the quotes Miss X obtained.
21. Miss X sent the Trust letters about Y’s health in March 2025. The Trust submitted a Capital Bid form to the Council for approval the same month. The Council confirmed its agreement in May 2025.
22. The Trust sent its stage two complaint response on 27 May 2025. It said significant systemic issues contributed to the delays, and the separation of functions between the Council and the Trust caused uncertainty over management and funding responsibilities. There was a lack of a clear, Trust-specific pathway for handling property adaptations under SGO arrangements. The absence of a clear lead officer also contributed to delays. Despite regular meetings to secure agreement, the absence of a clearly established process led to prolonged negotiation delays lasting into early 2025. The Council made efforts to address governance issues, and it has now established a pathway for managing similar cases.
23. The Trust said further complications arose because the procurement of builders had not followed standard procedures. However, because of the circumstances, the Council agreed to continue with the builder Miss X proposed, subject to added checks.
24. The Trust recognised the frustration the delays caused, given the critical importance of the loft extension to Y’s health needs. It recognised the delay to the loft conversion had a substantial and detrimental impact on Miss X and Y. It understood completing the loft conversion was necessary for Y’s transplant to proceed, which was a matter of significant urgency. It said work was underway to formalise new processes to ensure no other families experience similar delays, uncertainty or distress in future.
25. The Trust offered Miss X £500 as a gesture of goodwill for the inconvenience and distress suffered. It said the Council would continue providing regular updates on progress of the process.
26. The Council sent an agreement for the building works to Miss X in September 2025. However, it was not what Miss X expected. It was a grant, with clauses, and a charge placed on Miss X’s property. Miss X’s solicitor wrote to the Council pointing out this was the first time it had mentioned placing a charge on the property. They expressed the urgency of the situation, given Y could not go on the waiting list for a kidney transplant or have dialysis until he had his own bedroom. Miss X was concerned the delays were having a detrimental effect on Y’s health and causing distress to the whole family. 
27. Building work started on the loft conversion in October 2025 and was completed in December 2025.

My investigation

28. Miss X told us building work was to start on 8 September 2025 but paperwork delays and changes to the agreement prevented this. The Council emailed the paperwork two days before the work was due to start, but it had suddenly become a grant with clauses, clawback, and a charge against the property. Miss X said none of this was discussed previously. This left Miss X in limbo because Y needed a bedroom and his medical needs were becoming more urgent.
29. The Trust told us there was significant delay in the agreed extension being completed as part of the Special Guardianship Order. This occurred due to their being no pre-existing process or procedure between the Trust and the Council, and change in personnel responsible for progressing the matter on the Trust’s behalf.
30. However, the Trust confirmed the building work has now been completed and bills settled. It also confirmed Miss X received £500 compensation, offered as part of the complaint response, which was paid on 31 July 2025.
31. The Trust said at the time of Miss X’s request a funding approval process did not exist. It is the Trust’s understanding that one has been drafted incorporating learning from the situation for Miss X.
32. The Trust said under normal circumstances it would take six to eight weeks to approve a contractor. However, in this case it had unusual circumstances in that it had quotes already requested by Miss X. To expedite the process, it asked the Head of Procurement to accept these rather than the full contractor tender process.
33. The trust said if followed the Council application process for the capital funding request and presented its business case at the earliest opportunity for each stage of the process.
34. The Trust confirmed there was no record of a discussion with Miss X about a legal charge being placed on the property. It is not documented in the Court Order and because there was not a formal process or procedure in place it was not known by fostering or children’s social care staff that this would be a requirement. Once this came to light as a barrier, fostering head of service advocated for this to be waived to prevent further delay and this was successful.

Analysis

35. Miss X thought the extension work was going to start shortly after the Court Order confirming special guardianship in January 2024. It is reasonable to expect the Council would have to go through a formal approval process first.
36. However, the problem was there was no known formal process in place between the Trust and the Council. Not only did that mean delays, but it also meant different services did not know who had responsibility to manage or progress matters. As a result, the Trust could not give Miss X reliable information about what to expect or how long the process would take.
37. Early on, the Trust told Miss X she could use her preferred builder. It turned out this was not correct, and she was meant to choose a builder from an approved Council list.
38. The Council did eventually allow Miss X to use her preferred builder to prevent further delays. However, there were already delays by that stage.
39. I also did not see evidence the Trust or the Council told Miss X the Council would need to place a charge on her property, and that funding for the work would come with conditions. While this is reasonable to protect the Council’s investment, it came as a shock to Miss X. If the Council had a proper process in place with the Trust Miss X would have known about these terms and conditions from the outset.
40. Once the Council approved the work and agreed funding arrangements the extension work was completed in about two months. That was just a month short of two years since the Court Order. While it is not possible to say exactly how long the process should have taken if there was a policy in place, this is a significant delay which caused Miss X avoidable distress and impacted the wellbeing of Y, Miss X and her household for a prolonged period of time.
41. Miss Y’s household at the time was made up of four young children. One adopted, one a child in care, and another under a SGO with a complex medical condition. The hospital confirmed more space was needed so Y can have treatment at home. The Council recognised Y’s urgent medical needs, and the threat of harm if the delays continued.
42. Not only did the situation impact Y, but it also impacted Miss X, who took to sleeping on the sofa, and the other children under her care.
43. The Trust has already paid Miss X £500 for distress and inconvenience. The Trust offered the £500 remedy payment in May 2025, yet the work could not start until October, a further 5 months later.
44. Given the risk of harm to Y, their vulnerability, the prolonged nature of the delays, and the impact on the other children in what was an overcrowded household, I recommended the Council should offer an additional £750.
45. Since the Council has now set up a process for managing similar cases, I did not make any service improvement recommendations.

Back to top

Agreed Action

46. When a council commissions or arranges for another organisation to provide services, we treat actions taken by or on behalf of that organisation as actions taken on behalf of the council and in the exercise of the council’s functions. Where we find fault with the actions of the service provider, we can make recommendations to the council alone. Here we have found fault with the actions of the Trust and the Council and make the following recommendations to the Council.
47. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council should:
• Apologise to Miss X for the delays approving funding for the extension work, and for not making the terms and conditions of the funding clear to Miss X at the outset. The Council’s apology should be in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology.
• Pay Miss X an additional £750 to recognise the prolonged nature of the distress the household suffered, including about the risk of harm to Y.
48. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final Decision

49. I found the Council at fault for significant delays approving funding for the agreed building work.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman