Summary: We agree with the Council that there has been fault in the way it managed the family fostering placement of a child (Y) with the complainant and his wife. The Council apologised and agreed to make a symbolic payment for the avoidable distress and to provide a breakdown of the monies paid to the complainants. The original faults were then compounded by the Council’s failure to provide this breakdown. We recommended a specific remedy for this which the Council has accepted. Therefore, we have completed our investigation and am closing the investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that the Council failed to provide a responsive service to him and his wife when caring for their nephew, Y and it failed to make regular payments (foster carer allowance, childminding costs, settling in costs), to them as agreed;
2. The Council also delayed excessively in dealing with Mr X’s Children Act complaints in breach of the required timescales.
3. As a result, Mr X and his wife have been caused avoidable distress, frustration and time and trouble in making and pursuing their complaints.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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’.
5. 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).
6. 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(i), as amended).
7. 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

What I have and have not investigated

8. The Council has investigated Mr X’s complaints under the Children Act 1989 statutory complaints procedure. This involves a three-stage complaint process with an independent investigation and, at stage three, consideration by a complaints review panel.
9. Where there has been a statutory investigation, we look at whether there were any 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, and whether it has completed any recommendations without delay.
10. However, unless we identify fault in how the council carried out the stage two or three investigation, we will not reinvestigate the substantive matters, and will consider the resulting injustice and remedy, if one has not been provided.
11. Because there has been a thorough statutory investigation into Mr X’s complaints, I am not reinvestigating his initial concerns. I am looking only at the injustice caused by the faults identified by the Council, and whether the remedy is sufficient and has been fully implemented.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

12. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and by the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance, set out below. I spoke to Mr X on the telephone and made enquiries of the Council.
13. I issued a draft decision statement to the Council and to Mr X. I have taken into account their further comments before I reach my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative

14. When a child needs to be accommodated by a council because their parents cannot care for them safely, the law says councils should consider placing them with family or friends first. Friends and family foster carers can receive a fostering allowance and other practical support from the council.

Statutory complaints procedures

15. 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.
16. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. The statutory children’s complaints procedure was set up to provide children, young people and those involved in their welfare with access to an independent, thorough and prompt response to their concerns.

Facts of this case

21. This is a brief account of events.
22. Mr X and his wife are paternal relatives of Y. In mid-2023, the Council removed Y from the birth parents and placed Y with Mr X and his wife. The Council agreed that they were family foster carers and should be paid a fostering allowance. The Council also agreed to make a payment of £500 as a settling in grant because the complainants did not have the necessary equipment for a pre-school child. The Council only paid £100.
23. Subsequently, Mr X asked for their childminding costs (20 hours) because of their work commitments. The Council eventually agreed to meet 15 hours childminding costs.
24. In December 2023, Mr X complained to the Council that they were not receiving regular fostering payments, childminding costs and the initial agreed settling in costs. The Council told us that there were delays in making payments automatically to Mr X’s wife’s bank account. As an interim measure, it uploaded the payments manually onto a ‘bank card’ provided by the Council to Mr X’s wife. The Council accepts that this was inconsistent and resulted in lump sums being paid covering several weeks of the fostering allowance.
25. At stage one, the Council partially upheld the complaints. Mr X was unhappy with the response and asked to escalate his complaints to stage two. Mr X had to chase this up and, in May 2024, the Council sent a further response. Mr X was dissatisfied and again asked for a stage two investigation. In July 2024, the Council appointed an independent investigator.

The stage two investigation by an independent investigator

26. This was a detailed and thorough investigation completed in January 2025. There were ten complaints, all of which were upheld. Broadly these complaints were: delays in responding to Mr X’s communications and complaints, failure to make regular agreed payments for looking after Y, failure to provide a breakdown of those payments, a lack of support from the social workers and a failure to understand the avoidable distress caused to the complainants by the Council’s actions.
27. The independent investigator recommended that the Council apologise to the complainants for all the upheld complaints, pay the outstanding £400 and consider making a payment for the avoidable distress.
28. The Council offered a symbolic payment of £1,000 for the avoidable distress which included payment of the outstanding £400.
29. Mr X requested a complaints review panel (the Panel-the third stage of the statutory complaints process). This was set up in July 2025. The Council explains that the delay was caused by finding panel members who were available and it kept Mr X fully informed. The Council also apologised for the delay.
30. The Panel agreed with the stage two findings and added that the service fell below acceptable standards. During the Panel hearing, Mr X raised an additional complaint about an alleged forged signature.
31. In August 2025, the Council wrote to Mr X, fully accepting the Panel’s decisions. The Council apologised and stated: “I regret that what should have been a partnership in care became a source of stress, anxiety and financial hardship for you both”. The Council stated that it would increase the symbolic payment (separate to any monies outstanding) for avoidable distress and impact on family life, for loss of earnings and delays in the complaint handling to £2,000, in addition to the £600 offered at stage two.
32. The Council also agreed to provide a detailed, itemised financial statement setting out all the payments made in respect of Y’s placement, including dates, amounts and purpose. The Council said this would be sent to Mr X by September 2025. The Council also stated it would arrange to investigate the allegation of the forged signature.
33. The Council explained to Mr X that it now had a targeted improvement plan which focused on improving support systems for family foster carers (kinship carers), staff training and strengthening financial decision making and complaint handling.

Subsequent events

34. In November 2025, Mr X referred his complaint to the Ombudsman (having previously complained in April 2025 but, at that stage, the statutory complaints process was not finished). He explained he had not received the itemised account of the payments made and he considered this further delay prolonged their distress.
35. The Council responded to my February 2026 enquiries in April, but it was not until mid-May 2026 that it provided the itemised account of the payments made. This has been sent to Mr X so that he and his wife can check their records. Childminding costs of 15 hours per week have been included. But it will be for Mr X and his wife to now check the payments itemised against their own records.
36. The Council has investigated the claim of a forged signature but says that it can find no evidence supporting this allegation.
37. Mr X has provided me with further information about this. In June 2023, a social worker prepared a personal developmental plan for Mr X, setting out what was expected of him as a long-term foster carer. Mr X’s name was typed in at the end of the document. There was no signature. The social worker signed the document.
38. Mr X is concerned that the social worker did not show this developmental plan to him and added his name without his consent. Mr X says he raised his concern at stage one of the complaint process, but he did not include this complaint as part of the stage two investigation. Mr X raised it again at the stage three panel hearing.
39. Mr X confirmed that he would have been happy to adhere to the developmental plan. But, because Y was returned to his parents, this plan became redundant.
40. The Council has continued with its improvement plan. It has set up a Friends and Family Panel to provide oversight and timeliness of payments, provided training to staff to ensure more empathetic communication and support, and quality monitoring by senior management.

Findings

41. The Council has already upheld Mr X’s original complaints and offered a remedy which Mr X to date has not accepted. I consider the Council’s offer is appropriate.
42. However, in addition, the Council failed to provide the itemised account of payments by August 2025, as promised. I consider that this too is fault. It is also unclear whether the Council has paid the additional £400 as part of the settling in agreement.
43. Regarding the alleged forged signature, the Council has said that there is no evidence of this.
44. I have considered the information provided by Mr X on this matter. I recognise that he is unhappy his typed name was added to a document which he had not seen. However, Mr X has said that he was content to follow the developmental plan proposed. So, if he had been shown the document, it is likely he would have accepted and formally signed the plan.
45. I also consider Mr X had the opportunity to pursue his concerns about this when the Council agreed to investigate his complaints at stage two. So, for these reasons, I do not intend to pursue this matter further.

Back to top

Action

46. I consider the Council offered a suitable remedy for the faults it had identified and an appropriate symbolic payment for the avoidable distress and frustration caused to the complainants. However, its further delays in implementing part of the remedy have added to Mr X and his wife’s injustice.
47. Our primary aim is to put people back in the position they would have been in if the fault by the council had not occurred. When this is not possible, we may recommend the council makes a symbolic payment. Where that takes the form of a payment, it is often a modest amount whose value is intended to be largely symbolic rather than purely financial. We also support organisational learning and improvements to help others.
48. We expect senior officers from councils to make effective, timely and specific apologies for the faults we have identified.
49. Within one month of the final statement, the Council will:
1. apologise to Mr X and his wife for the faults and injustice which I have identified. 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;
2. pay the outstanding £400, if this has not been paid;
3. if Mr X provides evidence to the Council (within two weeks of today’s date) that there is a shortfall in the fostering/childminding payments he has received, the Council should deal with this within one month of receipt of Mr X’s information; and
4. make a symbolic payment of £250.00 for the delay in providing the breakdown of the payments as it had promised to do so (in addition to the symbolic payment already offered by the Council).
50. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

51. The Council has already found fault causing an injustice. I find additional fault by the Council’s failure to implement fully its own recommended actions. The Council has agreed the recommended actions. Therefore, I have completed my investigation and am closing the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman