Summary: The Council has already accepted that it was at fault for how it supported Mrs X as a special guardian, and that this caused her an injustice. Its proposed symbolic financial remedy, however, did not adequately recognise that injustice. It has now agreed to offer
Mrs X an increased payment in line with our guidance on remedies.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains that the Council, after asking her to take on four young children under special guardianship orders, promised a range of support (including a bigger house and respite care) but failed to deliver any of it.
2. Mrs X says the Council did not respond to her complaint for a year, and, when it did, it offered her compensation (£800) which was completely inadequate.
3. Mrs X says her family had to be split up because she could not look after all the additional children as well as her own four children. She says this caused her distress, which contributed to a nervous breakdown.
4. Mrs X says she wants increased compensation from the Council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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 recommend a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
6. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide we could not add to any previous investigation by the council, if further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, if we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or if any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
7. If we are satisfied with a council’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)
8. 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

9. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law and guidance.
10. 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

Law and guidance

Complaint handling

11. The statutory guidance, ‘Getting the best from complaints’, sets out a three-stage procedure for complaints about certain aspects of children’s social care. I refer to this as ‘the statutory procedure’.
12. Special guardians (such as Mrs X) can use this procedure to complain about the support they receive to look after the children in their care. Regulations make clear that this procedure should be used to consider complaints about financial support (including for accommodation costs) and respite care.
13. The benefit of the statutory procedure is that the parent gets an independent investigation of their complaint (at stage 2), and, if they wish, an independent review (at stage 3).
14. We normally expect councils (and complainants) to follow the full statutory procedure before involving us. A complaint can only be referred to the Ombudsman earlier if, following a robust stage two investigation, all significant parts of the complaint have been upheld.

Remedies

15. We have issued guidance on our approach to remedying injustice.
16. When something has gone wrong, we will generally ask a council to put it right. Our aim is to put someone back in the position they would have been in had the council done things properly.
17. This is not always possible, and sometimes, therefore, we recommend payments.
18. These payments do not amount to compensation. We have neither the resources nor the expertise to decide the monetary value which should be placed on someone’s distress. This is a matter for the courts.
19. Instead, we recommend modest symbolic payments which ‘recognise’ injustice, rather than compensating for it.
20. Our recommendation for a remedy payment for avoidable distress should reflect various things, including the severity of the distress, the length of time involved, and the number of people affected (for example, members of the complainant’s family as well as the complainant).
21. Where we decide it is appropriate, we will normally recommend a remedy payment for distress of up to £500.
22. We can recommend higher payments to remedy distress where we decide it was especially severe or prolonged, or taking account of any personal vulnerability of those affected. Where we do so we will explain our reasons in our decision statement.
23. When there have been flaws in a council’s complaint handling, we may also recommend a remedy payment to recognise the time and trouble a complainant has gone to in pursuing the complaint. The remedy payment for time and trouble is likely to be up to £500.

What happened

24. Mrs X originally complained to the Council in August 2024. She said:
• In 2019 the Council asked her to take on the care of her two nephews under special guardianship orders. A year later it asked her to take on the nephews’ baby brother, and then a year after that it asked her to take on another baby. This was in addition to her own four children.
• When taking on the additional children, the Council promised her that she would be moved to a bigger property and that she would get respite care. But neither of these promises were kept.
• The Council made plans either to enlarge her housing association property or to help her buy her own house, but these plans came to nothing.
• She did not get a single day of respite care, including after she lost her mother and brother to cancer.
• The stress of bereavement was made worse by the stress of looking after eight children in cramped accommodation, and she had a nervous breakdown. She had to agree that the two older boys were put in the care of another family member.
25. The Council emailed Mrs X to clarify her complaint, but it received no response.
26. In February 2025, Mrs X asked the Ombudsman to investigate her complaint. She said she had received no response from the Council.
27. After we made preliminary enquiries of the Council, it told us it would re-open and respond to Mrs X’s complaint. We ended our involvement.
28. The Council then sought further clarification from Mrs X. The summary of her complaint was finalised in May.
29. The Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint under its corporate complaints procedure in August. The response was provided by a head of service, who said:
• There was no written record of promises made to Mrs X. Any support the Council had offered to her should have been confirmed in writing.
• The Council had held conversations with Mrs X which led her to believe that it had guaranteed certain support, when in fact the support required formal consideration and approval by senior leadership – approval which was subsequently denied.
• The Council made considerable efforts to explore housing options for Mrs X, including attempts to secure either an extension or relocation. However, it could not take any of the available options because of “financial, legal, and procedural limitations”.
• The absence of clear records and the departure of key staff involved in the decision-making process made it difficult to explain why certain housing proposals were not acted on. While there were numerous references within Mrs X’s records to meetings with housing providers and “legal consultations”, it was unclear why each proposed option was ultimately not agreed.
• The Council did contact Mrs X’s local council about respite care in 2022, but there was no evidence of any follow-up. While the provision of respite directly by the Council would have been impractical due to geographical distance, it should have worked more effectively with Mrs X’s local council to ensure she was supported to meet the children’s needs, particularly during a time of crisis.
• While the decision to move the two older children into another family member’s care was not made by the Council, it is likely that the pressures Mrs X was under, including the unresolved housing situation, contributed to the circumstances in which that decision was made.
• The Council had already made various improvements to its service.
30. The head of service apologised to Mrs X for the Council’s failings and provided details of the service improvements.
31. Mrs X remained dissatisfied and asked to escalate her complaint to the next stage. In October, the Council responded. It upheld the findings of the stage 1 response, but added:

“… the complaints process does not provide compensation in the legal sense. We are unable to quantify or compensate for emotional harm or family separation. However, in line with guidance from the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman … We would therefore like to offer … £300 for time and trouble, recognising the extended delay and the effort required to pursue this complaint … [and] £500 for distress, acknowledging the emotional impact of the identified service failings, particularly in relation to housing, respite, and support coordination”.

32. In November, Mrs X approached us again. She said that, while the Council had acknowledged its mistakes, its offer of compensation was inadequate. She wanted a better offer.

My findings

33. The Council should have processed Mrs X’s complaint under the statutory children’s complaints procedure because it is about relevant matters described in regulations. It did not do so, for which it was at fault.
34. Ordinarily, and in line with the statutory guidance, we would reject such a complaint and ask the council to investigate it properly before conducting our own investigation.
35. However, in Mrs X’s case, this would not be proportionate. She has already had a thorough response from a head of service which accepted that the Council was at fault in all areas of the complaint. The Council has apologised and has described improvements that it has made to its service to prevent similar issues reoccurring.
36. A further complaint investigation would not achieve anything different for Mrs X. With this in mind, I will neither recommend a reinvestigation by the Council nor conduct such a reinvestigation myself. And it would not be proportionate to recommend a remedy for the Council’s incorrect complaint handling because it caused Mrs X no significant injustice.
37. I have, however, considered whether the Council has provided a suitable remedy for the mistakes it made in supporting Mrs X as a special guardian – as outlined by the Council itself – and for her injustice arising from those mistakes.
38. Mrs X wants compensation. But, as I have explained above, this is not a service we provide. We only recommend modest, symbolic payments.
39. The Council has offered Mrs X £500 for distress arising from its lack of support, and £300 for the time and trouble she went to in making her complaint (which recognised the Council’s delayed responses).
40. The time and trouble payment appears satisfactory. However, although the distress payment is at the top of our usual range, it does not properly reflect:
• the severity of Mrs X’s avoidable distress (which, by her own description, contributed to a mental health crisis and the breakup of her family);
• the length of time involved (as this matter went on for over a year); or
• the number of people involved (as these matters will have affected other members of her household as well).
41. These aggravating factors, under the terms of our guidance, justify a payment which exceeds our usual range. The Council should now make such a payment to Mrs X.

Back to top

Action

42. Within four weeks, the Council has agreed to:
• Pay Mrs X a symbolic financial remedy of £1,000. This recognises the avoidable distress she was caused by its failure to properly support her as a special guardian, particularly in relation to housing and respite care. This payment will replace the £500 it offered her before she approached us.
• Pay Mrs X the £300 which it also offered her before she approached us. This recognises the time and trouble she went to in pursuing her complaint, including dealing with delays by the Council.
43. The Council will provide us with evidence that it has done these things.

Back to top

Decision

44. The Council has already accepted that it was at fault for how it supported Mrs X as a special guardian, and that this caused her an injustice. Its proposed remedy, however, did not adequately recognise that injustice. It will now take action to improve Mrs X’s remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman