Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly advise her about the needs and behaviours of two children placed with her as a foster carer and has refused her request for enhanced payments for the period of the placement. We found the Council’s failure to inform Mrs X of recent concerns about the children’s needs and behaviours, and the delays and poor communication regarding the request for enhanced fees are fault. These faults caused Mrs X unnecessary distress and uncertainty. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mrs X, and will carry out a retrospective review of the request for enhanced payments.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly advise her about the needs and behaviours of two children placed with her as a foster carer and has refused her request for enhanced payments for the period of the placement. This caused her family distress and financial loss.

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. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
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

Relevant law and guidance

8. Children who are looked after by a council may be placed in foster care. Foster care arrangements may be short or long term. Carers may also foster on an emergency basis or provide respite care.
9. Councils may only place children with approved foster carers. They usually have their own foster carers and may also use foster carers from private agencies.

Foster carers

10. The National Fostering Minimum Standards says foster carers should only be suggested as carers for a child if they can reasonably be expected to meet the child’s assessed needs. Foster carers should be made aware of all necessary information about the children, including any recent significant events, to help the carers understand and anticipate the children’s needs and behaviours. The information provided should be in clear and comprehensive written form.

What happened here

11. This is a summary of events outlining key facts and it does not cover everything that has happened in this case.
12. Mrs X is a foster carer with an independent fostering agency. On 12 March 2024 the Council placed two siblings, Child B and Child C with her family.
13. The placement referral form for Child B notes they can have trouble regulating their emotions and sometimes feel angry and that they are supported by a mental health service The form does not identify any risks in relation to Child B’s behaviours.
14. In relation to Child C’s needs, the placement form notes that they can struggle with their emotional regulation and can be easily triggered which results in them becoming physically and verbally abusive towards teachers and peers. They have also damaged school property.
15. Under the section of the form on behaviours the Council marked yes to verbal aggression and notes this is when triggered at school, however this has greatly reduced. The Council marked no to physical aggression.
16. Mrs X attended a Child in Care Planning meeting for Child B & Child C on 18 March 2024. The minutes note Mrs X had concerns about the children and said Child C presents as though they have additional needs. Mrs X felt Child C should be assessed to determine whether they had additional needs.
17. Child C’s All About Me, child in care assessment in early June 2024 notes that Mrs X was called into school in April as Child C was dysregulated and was trying to hit, kick and scratch carers. Child C was also violent on the journey home and Mrs X had to call the police and paramedics for assistance. The records say Child C was also dysregulated at home a few weeks earlier and punched another child and pulled out some of their hair. Mrs X told the Council she had had to ask the fostering agency for restraint training.
18. The records also note the social worker had not heard of Child C displaying these types of episodes at school when the children were placed with Mrs X. Mrs X says the head teacher disputed this and reminded the social worker Child C had been violent at school on several occasions prior to coming into Mrs X’s care. And that this had been discussed at the previous meeting.
19. In August 2024 the fostering agency contacted the Council’s Home Finding Team to request an enhanced fee for Child B & Child C. The agency noted the children had been removed from their previous carers and there had been a lack of disclosures and knowledge of the children’s experiences and behaviours in their care. The agency acknowledged the Council was not aware or witness to the behaviours and treatment of the children which had had a significant impact on them. This had required Mrs X to provide a high level of care, risk management and safety planning in the home.
20. The agency also said Child C had displayed aggressive behaviour and violence on three significant occasions. And that school staff and Mrs X and her family had sustained injuries and Child C had damaged property. It said the children’s needs were significantly more complex than the referrals suggested and Mrs X would require additional support through an enhanced fee.
21. A social worker completed a statutory visit with Child B and Child C at home in early September 2024. The notes of this visit state Child C had been much more settled over the past few months. There were worries about how they regulated their emotions and in some cases had lashed out and displayed their emotions in a dysregulated way. However the social worker noted this had not been observed over the past few months since the last episode at school.
22. The fostering agency chased the Council for a response to the enhanced fee request in early October 2024. The Council’s records show it held a Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting on 7 October 2024 to discuss the request. The Council has not provided full notes of this meeting but the records provided show the request would be discussed further at the External Placement Panel (EPP). There would also be a discussion with health colleagues.
23. An internal email says the Council should ask the fostering agency for a breakdown of the training and support, and associated costs. There is no record the Council contacted the fostering agency at this stage. The Council suggest an officer may have contacted the agency by telephone but would not have made a record of the call.
24. On 23 October 2024 Child B made an allegation about a relative of Mrs X. The Council put a safety plan in place. Mrs X gave notice for Child B to leave her care on 6 November 2024.
25. The Council held a further MDT meeting on 18 November 2024 to review the children’s needs. The Council has not provided minutes of this meeting.
26. The Council considered whether both children should move to new foster carers together. Following an incident between Child B and Child C on 27 November 2024 the Council decided it would be better to separate the children.
27. Child B moved to a new foster carer on 9 December 2024 and Child C remained with Mrs X.
28. Mrs X contacted the social worker in early January 2025 for an update on the enhanced fee request as they had not heard anything since October 2024. The social worker confirmed they had had a meeting and would check the outcome.
29. In late January 2025 the fostering agency contacted the Council about its request for an enhanced fee as it had not received a response. The Council asked the agency to confirm how the money would be spent and when the enhanced fee would be reviewed. It also asked for a list of incidents. When it received this information it said it would go to the EPP.
30. In May 2025 Mrs X provided a log of incidents involving Child C since March 2024. She understood there would be a meeting on 11 June 2025 to consider enhanced payments and says she was assured the payments would be approved and backdated. The meeting did not take place.
31. Mrs X gave notice to end the placement following an incident at school on 13 June 2025 when Child C injured school staff and several children.
32. On 23 June 2025 Mrs X made a formal complaint to the Council about its failure to make appropriate payments for Child B and Child C’s placement with her family. She complained the referrals did not contain crucial information that would have helped them form a better understanding of whether it was safe to accept the placement. Mrs X says they were not informed that Child C had been violent and aggressive on several occasions at school and in the previous foster carer’s home.
33. In addition Mrs X says Child B displayed sexualised behaviours and went on to make a serious allegation about a member of Mrs X’s family. Mrs X said this caused irreparable damage to her family. She noted that although Child B had previously made a similar allegation and had displayed sexualised behaviours this information was not include in their referral.
34. Mrs X said it was not safe to have either of the children placed in their care. Had they been given the correct information they would not have accepted the placement.
35. The Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint on 11 July 2025. It said the children’s needs and presentation at the time were outlined in the home finding referral and information sent to the fostering agency. The were also discussed at the placement planning meeting after the children were placed in Mrs X’s care.
36. It said that when the children were placed with Mrs X they did not have the current behavioural difficulties. And that the sexualised behaviour developed over the time the children were in Mrs X’s care. It says the Council recognised this and held a meeting in October 2024 to discuss the children’s needs and what support could be offered.
37. The Council said the children’s social worker said Child C was not challenging at the time and incidents were not regular, but that it was becoming difficult to keep them calm. It said the meeting confirmed an enhanced fee was not required and more evidence was required. A further meeting took place on 18 November 2024, following which the Council says it asked the fostering agency to complete a chronology of the children’s behaviours and how this impacted on Mrs X. The Council says there was a six month delay in receiving the chronology.
38. In addition, the Council said the fostering agency should make enhanced fee requests to the Home Finding team not to the social worker and team manager. It said the recently cancelled MDT would be rebooked and if it recommended an enhanced fee was required the request would be presented to the EPP. The Council said the request for backdated payments could be considered from January 2025 when Child C’s behaviour started to escalate, but not from the start of the placement.
39. The Council suggested Mrs X complain to the fostering agency as its lack of actions had caused some of the delay.
40. Mrs X was not satisfied with the Council’s response and asked for her complaint to be considered further. The Council was satisfied its stage one response addressed Mrs X’s concerns. It reiterated that the fostering agency had not followed the correct process to request an enhanced fee, so this could not be backdated to the start of the placement.
41. Mrs X remains dissatisfied and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate her concerns. In response to our enquiries the Council says its records show that Children’s services were not aware at the time of placement of the children’s behaviours. It notes the fostering agency accepted this in its request for enhanced fees.
42. The Council states the enhanced fee was first requested in October 2024, at which point it held an MDT meeting. The meeting determined further information was required. The Council has also reiterated that the fostering agency failed to provide the required information for the case to be presented to the EPP to determine any enhanced fee.
43. Mrs X says in considering whether to pay an enhanced fee the Council should not question how this will be spent. She says an enhanced fee is paid to foster carers who care for children with complex needs. It is meant to reward their advanced skills and compensate for the intensive full time care required to support a child’s specific behavioural, emotional and physical requirements.

Analysis

44. Child B and Child C were removed from their previous foster carers and placed with temporary foster carers before being placed with Mrs X. Given the circumstances in which the children were removed from the previous foster carers it is possible the Council was unaware of the full extent of their current needs and behaviours.
45. However, the Council was aware of concerns raised by the temporary foster carers. While the intention was for the children to remain with the temporary foster carers until 19 March 2024, the carers asked for the children to be removed early. The records show the temporary foster carers were unable to cope with Child C’s aggressive behaviour and had needed additional support to keep them safe. The carers also raised concerns about Child B’s challenging behaviour. And the increased needs and a deterioration in the children’s behaviours in the 18 months since the last they had last been placed with them.
46. There is no reference to these events in the placement referral for or any other evidence Mrs X was informed of the concerns about the children’s recent behaviour before she accepted the placement.
47. I consider the failure to make Mrs X aware of the recent events was fault. This failure meant Mrs X was unable to make an informed decision about whether or not to accept the placement. As a result she has experienced distress and uncertainty.
48. Mrs X disputes that the children’s sexualised behaviour developed over the time they were in her care. There is no reference in the documentation the Council has provided to earlier sexualised behaviour. I am unable to speculate on when this began.
49. I also consider the Council at fault in the way it dealt with the request for an enhanced fee and its record keeping and communication. Although the Council says the fostering agency first requested this in October 2024 and did not follow the correct process, the documentation it has provided does not support this.
50. The fostering agency contacted the Council on 15 August 2025. A Home Finding officer forwarded the request for an enhanced fee to the relevant officers the same day. However the Council did not consider this request until October 2024 when the fostering agency requested an update. The fostering agency had contacted the correct team and the delay in considering the request is fault.
51. The Council has not provided minutes of the meetings where the request was discussed or records of its contact with the fostering agency. The records show the Council intended to ask the fostering agency for a breakdown of the training and support, and associated costs in October 2024, but there is no record it did. The Stage 1 complaint response says an action point from the meeting in November 2024 was for the fostering agency to complete a chronology. There is no evidence of the Council’s contact with the agency at that stage.
52. The Council says it requested the chronology again on 8 January 2025 but again has not provided copies of it correspondence with the fostering agency. Mrs X has provided a copy of her email exchange with the social worker in early January 2025. The social worker confirmed the Council had held a meeting following their last contact in October 2024. But they do not suggest in their email of 7 January 2025 that they are awaiting any information from the fostering agency.
53. The Council has provided copy correspondence from the fostering agency dated 31 January 2025 chasing a response to the enhanced fee request and the Council’s response of 2 February 2025. The Council asks the agency to confirm how the money would be spent and how long before a review. It also suggests a list of incidents would help. The Council’s email does not say it has previously requested this information or that it was awaiting a response from the agency.
54. Based on the documentation available I consider, on the balance of probabilities the Council requested additional information from the fostering agency in February 2025. The failure to request information or progress the request prior to this is fault.
55. Having requested a chronology in February 2025, it was then three month before the Council received this information. I do not consider the Council was responsible for this period of delay.
56. Although Child C left Mrs X’s care in June 2025, the Council’s response to her complaint in July 2025 confirmed it would rebook the MDT to discuss the enhanced fee and request for backdated payments. There is no evidence the Council has completed this action. This is fault.
57. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether Mrs X should have received an enhanced fee, or the extent to which any enhanced fee should be backdated. However it is clear the delays, and poor communication regarding the Council’s consideration of the request for an enhanced fee have caused Mrs X unnecessary distress and uncertainty.

Back to top

Action

58. Within one month of the final decision on this complaint the Council has agreed to:
• Apologise to Mrs X for the failure to inform her of recent concerns about the children’s needs and behaviours, and for the delays and poor communication regarding the request for enhanced fees, and the distress and uncertainty this caused. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
• Make a symbolic payment to Mrs X of £500 to recognise the distress and uncertainty she experienced as a result of the fault identified.
• Carry out a retrospective review of the request for an enhanced fee and backdated payments. The Council will provide Mrs X with a clear written decision and rationale.
• Remind relevant staff of the importance of good record keeping and communication.
59. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman