Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of her application to become a foster carer. She also complained about the way the Council dealt with her complaint. We found the significant delays and failings in the assessment process are fault. As are the failings in the complaint process. These faults raised Miss X’s expectations that she would be accepted as a foster carer and meant she experienced frustration and uncertainty for an extended period of time. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of her application to become a foster carer. The process took almost two years with poor communication, contradictory information and repeated delays.
2. Miss X also complained about the way the Council dealt with her complaint.

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. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Miss 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

Fostering

8. The Fostering Services (England) Regulations 2011, as amended, set out a two stage process for assessing a person’s suitability to foster. The stages can be done separately or at the same time.
9. Stage 1 assess an applicant’s suitability to foster and involves statutory checks and enquiries including:
• the applicant’s name address and date of birth,
• medical checks;
• details of the applicant’s family and any other children in the household;
• details of the household’s accommodation;
• personal references; and
• an enhanced Disclosure and Baring Service (DBS) check.
10. Stage 2 then requires more detailed information about the applicant’s personality and ability to care for a child placed with them. This information is then included in a written report to the fostering panel along with any recommendations.
11. The National Fostering Minimum Standards say fostering assessments must be presented to a fostering panel within eight months of receiving the application.

What happened here

12. Miss X enquired with the Council about becoming a foster carer in May 2023. The Council carried out an initial visit to Miss X’s home on 12 June 2023. The records of this visit note Miss X lived in a 2 bedroom property, which she had converted to provide four bedrooms. Miss X used a room downstairs for her own bedroom and had partitioned the larger bedroom upstairs for her children’s use. The second bedroom was available for fostering.
13. The Council asked Miss X to confirm with her landlord that they did not object to her fostering or the conversion of the property. On receipt of this confirmation the Council then invited Miss X to apply to be a foster carer.
14. The Council started the statutory checks and on 31 July 2023 told Miss X her application had progressed to Stage 2. It said an officer would contact her to discuss the process.
15. An officer visited Miss X on 5 September 2023 to begin the assessment. The records show Miss X had a medical assessment in October 2023 and in November and December 2023 the Council chased references for Miss X.
16. It is unclear what happened in the following months. The Council’s records do not detail any further action until February 2025 however Miss X had provided a copy of a message from the assessing officer on 23 September 2024. The officer asked to visit Miss X with their manager to discuss concerns that had arisen regarding an earlier visit with Miss X in 2017.
17. Miss X says neither the assessing officer nor their manager contacted her again. When the Council passed Miss X’s case to another officer to complete the assessment she queried the outstanding concerns. Miss X says the new assessor told her there was no issues from 2017.
18. The new assessor completed the assessment on 18 February 2025 and sent it to the panel advisor for quality assurance. The panel advisor highlighted gaps in the assessment and noted Miss X’s medical was now over a year old. They also raised concerns about Miss X’s availability given the needs of her birth children and the space in the home. The panel advisor asked for a second opinion visit to be conducted jointly with housing.
19. Officers visited Miss X on 7 March 2025. Following the visit the Council wrote to Miss X on 14 March 2025 to advise her application would not progress any further. It said the key areas of concern were:
• the amended layout of Miss X’s property had led to limited communal areas that may not sufficiently accommodate both the household and a foster child;
• the presence of mould in the property does not meet The Standards of Care or Health and Safety requirements; and
• the condition of the garden falls short of The Standards of Care or Health and Safety requirements
20. The Council explained it was required to present a termination report to the panel outlining the reasons it could not progress the assessment. This report would formally conclude the process.
21. Miss X was disappointed with the decision and questioned why these issues were not raised earlier considering the Council had visited twice. The Council arranged a virtual meeting to discuss Miss X’s concerns and then responded formally on 28 April 2025.
22. The Council apologised for the length of time the assessment had taken. It explained the delays were in large part due to structural changes within the fostering team, staff transitions and increased caseloads. It acknowledged that the delays and the lack of consistent communication contributed to a poor experience.
23. In addition the Council said it had reconsidered the assessment, which included looking at:
• Miss X’s availability as a single mother of three children;
• The potential impact of fostering on her family;
• Practical arrangements such as school pick-ups and emergency contingencies; and
• Previous relationship dynamics.
24. The Council also confirmed the final stages of the assessment raised concerns about limited communal space in the home. It said this limitation would not support a positive experience, particularly when caring for young people with varying and often complex needs.
25. Miss X was not satisfied with the response and asked for her complaint to be considered further. Miss X told the Council she had contacted a fostering agency who had accepted her application. She said this made the delays and lack of clarity even more frustrating.
26. Miss X reiterated that her housing officer had visited twice and confirmed her property was suitable for fostering, and that concerns about communal space, mould and the garden had not been raised earlier in the process.
27. In addition, Miss X was concerned the Council has introduced new reasons for rejecting her application in response to her complaint. She asked for a full review of her case.
28. The Council responded again at stage 1 of its complaint process on 25 June 2025. It confirmed the primary reason for the decision to close her assessment was the size and layout of her property. Although the housing officer deemed the property suitable the Council said its fostering requirements were different. These requirements are based on ensuring a child has access to personal space and a living environment that supports both the child and the family’s overall well-being.
29. The Council also clarified that Miss X’s status as a single parent and her past relationship history were not factors that led to the closure of her assessment.
30. The report and Miss X’s comments were presented to the fostering panel on 17 June 2025 and the Council closed the case.
31. Miss X remains dissatisfied and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate her concerns. She says the process took over 20 months due to delays and poor communication, causing her unnecessary emotional distress and wasted time.
32. In response to my enquires the Council acknowledges there were delays in progressing the assessment. It says that due to staffing pressures and structural change the original assessor was unable to complete the assessment and the case was placed on hold. Following recruitment and service restructure Miss X’s case was reallocated to a new assessor in September 2024.
33. The Council also accepts the concerns which ultimately informed the decision not to continue the assessment should have been identified, considered and communicated more clearly at an earlier stage. It says questions about the recorded status of Miss X’s home were identified at the initial visit. But the full implications of the size, layout, overcrowding and shared living arrangements were not clearly resolved at that stage.
34. The Council says it has reflected on the delay in progression, the need for consistent assessment practice, the importance of earlier evaluation of property suitability and the need for timely communication where an assessment may not progress. It has implemented clearer timescales to support the timely progression of assessments. The Council says it has also strengthened management oversight and monitoring through the Council’s recording systems.

Analysis

35. The Council’s website sets out the fostering process it follows. It states it aims to complete stage 1 within two months, and to complete stage 2 within four months. The National Minimum Standards also require the fostering panel to make a recommendation on the suitability of a prospective foster career within eight months of receiving the application.
36. In this instance the Council took 20 months to complete stage 2 and produce a report and a further 4 months to present the report to the fostering panel. Delays of this nature are clearly unacceptable and amount to fault.
37. The failure to identify and communicate to Miss X that the size, lay out, and limited communal space at her property made it unsuitable for fostering is also fault. The Council was aware from the initial visit in June 2023 of the lay out and space available at Miss X’s property. The notes following this visit clearly set out the sleeping arrangements, which include using one of the reception rooms downstairs as a bedroom.
38. There is no record of any consideration of the communal space at this stage or during the following visit in September 2023. Nor is there any reference, in either visit, to concerns of mould in the bathroom or the condition of the garden.
39. There was also fault in the way the Council responded to Miss X’s complaint. The Council has a two stage complaints process, but both responses to Miss X’s complaints state they are stage 1 responses. The Council acknowledges it logged both complaints as stage one complaints but says the response of 25 June 2025 was a stage two response as it was escalated to an Assistant Director.
40. The failure to correctly identify the response of 25 June 2025 meant Miss X was not given clear information regarding the next stage of her complaint and was not signposted to the Ombudsman’s service. The initial response also caused uncertainty about the reasons the assessment could not proceed.
41. Having identified fault I must consider whether these faults have caused Miss X an injustice. But for these faults Miss X would have known much sooner, potentially following the initial visit, that her property did not meet the requirements for fostering. It is possible that had the Council identified and properly considered the issues with her property at the outset it would not have invited Miss X to apply to become a foster carer.
42. Mrs X would then have been able to consider her options and may have contacted an independent fostering agency sooner. The Council’s actions raised Miss X’s expectations that she would be accepted as a foster carer and delayed her approach to an independent agency. The fault also meant Miss X experienced distress, frustration and uncertainty for an extended period and was put to unnecessary time and trouble.
43. I consider the Council should make a symbolic payment to recognise the distress, frustration and uncertainty Miss X has experienced and the wasted time she has spent on this matter.

Back to top

Action

44. The Council has agreed to:
• Apologise to Miss X for the faults identified and the distress, frustration and uncertainty this caused her. 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.
• Make a symbolic payment of £500 to Miss X to recognise the distress, frustration and uncertainty she has experienced and the wasted time she has spent on this matter.
45. 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.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman