Summary: The Council was at fault for delays to its temporary and full approvals of Mrs X as a kinship foster carer. These delays meant she missed out on fostering allowance and fees. The Council was also at fault for its policy on fostering fees, which did not meet its statutory duties to kinship carers. This caused injustice to Mrs X and others. The Council will now make payments to remedy the injustice of all those affected, including Mrs X, and will amend its policy.

The complaint

1. After the Police placed Mrs X’s 15-year-old nephew, Y, in her care in November 2024, she complains that the Council:
• Caused significant delays in arranging for Y to become a ‘looked-after child’.
• Would not backdate her fostering allowance to the date Y moved into her care.
• Paid her allowance for Y at a ‘maintenance’ rate, not the full fostering rate.
• Mishandled her complaint.
2. Mrs X says she suffered a financial injustice, and distress.

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. We may investigate matters coming to our attention during an investigation, if we consider that a member of the public who has not complained may have suffered an injustice as a result. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26D and 34E, as amended)
5. We have the power to make recommendations to remedy the injustice experienced by complainants and members of the public affected by fault we identify. (Local Government Act 1974 s 31(2B)).
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(1), 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

How I considered this complaint

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

Approval of foster carers

10. ‘Kinship care’ (or ‘family and friends care’) is any situation in which a child is being raised in the care of a friend or family member who is not their parent.
11. A child can be placed with a kinship carer temporarily for up to 16 weeks. This temporary approval period can be extended to 24 weeks in certain circumstances. (Regulation 24, The Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010)
12. Before a child is placed temporarily with a kinship carer, the council must assess the suitability of the carer and consider whether the placement will protect the child and promote their welfare. (Statutory guidance document: ‘Kinship care’ (October 2024))
13. When a council has temporarily approved a kinship carer, it must complete a full fostering assessment as soon as practicable, and always within the 16- (or 24-) week statutory timeframe. (Standard 30(14), The Fostering Services National Minimum Standards)
14. A person approved in this manner is in all respects a local authority foster carer, other than that the approval is made on a temporary basis. (Statutory guidance document: ‘Kinship care’ (October 2024))
15. If the temporary approval period expires without full approval of the kinship carer being granted, the council must remove the child from their care. (Statutory guidance document: ‘Kinship care’ (October 2024))

Financial support

16. Kinship carers will be entitled to the same financial support as is available to mainstream foster carers. (Standard 30(10), The Fostering Services National Minimum Standards)
17. ‘Allowances’ cover the cost of looking after a child. They must be paid in line with the government’s national minimum fostering allowance, and must be equally available to all carers, including kinship carers. (The Children Act 1989 Guidance and Regulations Volume 4: Fostering Services)
18. ‘Fees’ are in addition to allowances. They may be paid to reflect expertise, or to reflect the nature of the tasks undertaken by foster carers. Where a fostering service pays fees, it must pay them to all carers who meet its criteria, including kinship carers. (The Children Act 1989 Guidance and Regulations Volume 4: Fostering Services)
19. However, there is no reason why a council cannot set criteria for payment of fostering fees which mainstream carers are much more likely to meet than kinship carers are – as long as kinship carers are not excluded from also seeking to meet the criteria. (R (on the application of X) v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council [2013] EWCA Civ 904)
20. To receive the Council’s fostering fee, carers – including kinship carers – must be fully approved. Kinship carers who are temporarily approved will be paid the national minimum allowance but will not receive the additional fee. (The Council’s fostering allowance rates, 2024/25 and 2025/26)
21. For the past two years, the Council’s fostering fee (which is paid only to fully approved carers) has been £206.66 per week for children aged 12 and under. (The Council’s fostering allowance rates, 2024/25 and 2025/26)
22. For children aged 13 and over, mainstream foster carers have received a fee of £258.27, whereas fully approved kinship carers have only received £206.66. (The Council’s fostering allowance rates, 2024/25)

What happened

Placement

23. In November 2024, Y’s parents were arrested and placed into custody. The Police took Y to Mrs X’s home and contacted the Council’s children’s social care service.
24. The Council was unaware that Y’s parents remained in custody. It discovered this in early December after visiting their home. It found out Mrs X was looking after Y.
25. Mrs X told the Council that she wanted to continue looking after Y, but she raised concerns about the financial impact this could have on her. She said she would only consider an arrangement for which she received financial assistance.

Viability assessment

26. In mid-December, the Council decided a ‘viability assessment’ should be done to decide whether Mrs X was suitable to temporarily look after Y.
27. The Council visited Mrs X two days later to complete this assessment. She again raised concerns about her finances. The social worker recommended that Y continue staying with Mrs X on a temporary basis as she was “able to provide a safe and secure home for [Y] at present and [was] able to safeguard [him]”.
28. Y’s mother also confirmed that she was happy for Y to remain in Mrs X’s care.
29. Alongside its viability assessment, the Council held a child protection conference (in early January 2025).
30. The child protection plan arising from the conference addressed the fact that the viability assessment had not been completed. It said Y’s social worker, within a week, would “speak to the Head of Service to sign off the assessment”.
31. Mrs X contacted the Council in mid-January for an update. The Council told her Y’s social worker had been away. It also said it still needed to speak to Y’s parents to confirm they agreed to him becoming a looked-after child.
32. At the end of January, the Council spoke to Y’s mother, who agreed to him becoming looked-after.
33. In mid-February (six weeks after Y’s child protection conference), Mrs X was temporarily approved as a kinship carer. She began receiving an allowance of £248 per week. The Council started a full fostering assessment.

Complaint

34. Later in February, Mrs X made a formal complaint to the Council. She complained about delays to the viability assessment. She also said she should be getting the additional fees that a mainstream foster carer would receive.
35. Around a month later, Mrs X had not received a response. She made another complaint about the same things.
36. The Council said it had not seen Mrs X’s previous complaint (from February) because it had not been forwarded to the right department. It apologised.
37. In April, the Council answered Mrs X’s complaint. It refused to pay her its fostering fee until she had been fully approved. It did apologise for delays to its viability assessment; however, it only agreed to backdate her allowance to the end of January, when Y’s mother had agreed that he could become looked-after.

Fostering assessment

38. The Council completed its fostering assessment at the end of July 2025. But it had not gathered enough information to take the case to its fostering panel.
39. The Council took the case to its panel in early September. But the panel did not approve the assessment, because some information was still outstanding.
40. Mrs X received full approval in mid-October, and, shortly afterwards, began receiving the Council’s fostering fee (£206.66 per week) on top of her allowance.
41. Y returned to his mother’s care in late February 2026.

My findings

Payment of fostering fees

42. Government guidance says fostering fees should be paid equally to kinship and mainstream carers, provided they meet the fostering service’s criteria. Mrs X’s fostering service, which is the Council, is in charge of setting its own criteria.
43. The Court of Appeal made clear (in the Tower Hamlets judgment, above), that these criteria can be harder to meet for kinship carers than for mainstream carers.
44. The Council only pays its fostering fee to fully approved foster carers. Mainstream carers are already fully approved before they take on children, but temporary kinship carers can only be fully approved after a fostering assessment. This approach is not obviously out of line with the above law and guidance.
45. It is also understandable why a council may decide that a carer should undergo a minimum level of assessment before qualifying for additional payments.
46. With this in mind, I have found no fault in the Council’s decision to pay Ms X’s fostering fee from the date she was fully approved as a foster carer rather than the date of her temporary approval.

Fostering fee rates for older children

47. As referred to above, mainstream carers may find it easier than kinship carers to meet a council’s criteria for fostering fees. But kinship carers should not be completely excluded from meeting those criteria.
48. The Council automatically pays mainstream carers an increased fee for children aged 13 and over. But it does not do the same for kinship carers. There is no opportunity for kinship carers to be paid that increased fee.
49. This means the Council’s policy does exclude kinship carers from being paid the same fees as mainstream carers for children aged 13 and over. This goes against the Council’s statutory duties, for which it is at fault.
50. As Y was 15 when he moved into Mrs X’s care, and as she was not paid the increased fee after being fully approved, this matter caused her an injustice.
51. In response to my enquiries, the Council accepted that it was at fault for its policy and has agreed to amend it.
52. The Council also says that, since April 2024, 12 kinship carers (other than Mrs X) have received fostering fees for children aged 13 or over. The wording of the policy suggests that these carers have also been excluded from receiving the increased fee. The Council has agreed to address their injustice.

Initial delay

53. The Council was not involved in placing Y in Mrs X’s care, and it only found out she was looking after him full-time around two weeks after he moved in with her.
54. However, once the Council had decided to assess Mrs X’s suitability to temporarily look after Y, it should have completed the assessment without delay.
55. Within two days of starting this assessment, the Council had visited Mrs X, decided the placement was suitable and recommended that Y remained there. But, almost four weeks later – at Y’s child protection conference – Mrs X’s temporary approval had still not been signed off.
56. This was discussed in the conference, and it was agreed that Mrs X would be temporarily approved within a week. But this still took another six weeks.
57. This meant Y was living with Mrs X for two months before she began receiving a fostering allowance. Part of this period amounted to delay, for which the Council was at fault. It should now make a payment to Mrs X to recognise her injustice.

Further delay

58. When the Council eventually agreed Mrs X’s temporary approval, it had, at most, 24 weeks to complete her fostering assessment (by August 2025).
59. Instead, the Council approved Mrs X in October 2025. This was a further delay, for which it was at fault.
60. I have seen no reason to suggest that Mrs X would have failed the approval process if it had been completed on time.
61. As the Council only pays its fostering fees to fully approved kinship carers, this delay caused Mrs X to miss out on those fees between August and October 2025.
62. The fees would have amounted to £206.66 per week. The Council should backdate them.

Complaint handling

63. The Council misplaced Mrs X’s original complaint for around a month after she made it, for which it was at fault.
64. The Council apologised for this error at the time and did not cause any further significant delays in its complaint handling.
65. For these reasons, Mrs X’s injustice from this matter has been dealt with, and I will make no further recommendations.

Back to top

Agreed action

66. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Mrs X which recognises her injustice from the delay to its viability assessment, which meant there was a delay to her fostering allowance. This will be calculated at a rate of £248 per week between mid-January 2025 (a week after Y’s child protection conference) and mid-February (the date she was temporarily approved as a kinship carer).
67. The Council will make a second payment to Mrs X equal to the fostering fees she could have received between August and October 2025 if there had been no delay to her full approval as a foster carer (at a rate of £206.66 per week).
68. The Council will make a third payment to Mrs X which recognises her injustice from its policy, which excluded her from receiving the same fostering fee that a mainstream carer would have received. This will be calculated at a rate of £51.61 per week between August 2025 (when she should have been fully approved as a foster carer), and late February 2026 (when Y left her care).
69. The Council will write to each of the 12 people (not including Mrs X) who have been kinship carers for children aged 13 or over since April 2024. In its correspondence, the Council will:
• Explain my findings on its fostering fee policy – specifically, the exclusion of kinship carers from getting the Council’s increased fee for older children.
• Apologise to anyone who has suffered an injustice.
• Ensure that each person who has suffered a financial injustice from the policy is given a payment which equals the fees they missed out on between 1 April 2024 and the present day.
70. The Council will review its fostering fee rates and ensure they meet statutory expectations. In particular, it will focus on the disparity between the fostering fees mainstream and kinship carers receive for children aged 13 and over.
71. The Council will provide us with evidence it has done these things within four weeks.

Back to top

Decision

72. The Council was at fault, which caused injustice to Mrs X and others. The Council will now take action to remedy this injustice, and to improve its service.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman