Summary: We cannot investigate Ms M and Mr F’s complaint about the Council’s involvement in arrangements for B to live with them in 2018 because it is too late. We will not investigate their complaint about the financial support they receive from the Council to care for B because there is not sufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Ms M and Mr F complain about the lack of financial and other support from the Council to care for B. B has lived with Ms M and Mr F full-time since July 2018.
2. They complained to the Council on 9 January 2024. The Council responded at the first stage of the statutory children’s complaints procedure on 12 February 2024. The Council responded following an independent investigation at the second stage on 7 October 2024, and the third stage on 28 March 2025. Ms M and Mr F complained to us on 8 May 2025.
3. They asked us to consider eight complaints. Ms M and Mr F complain:
• B should have been considered a ‘looked after child’ when he was ‘placed’ with them in summer 2018.
• the Council should have ‘safeguarded’ B before and after he came to live with them.
• they were unfairly blamed for delays in their application for a Special Guardianship Order (SGO).
• the Council did not use its discretion to consider B’s complex needs in terms of the extra costs they incur, both before and during the SGO assessment
• the Council removed the words “[B] was previously a looked after child” from the final SGO support plan in July 2023.
• the Council refused their many requests for financial support, including when they were faced with homelessness.
• the Council used an unlawful policy to calculate their SGO allowance, which meant they also received less ‘pre-SGO allowance’. The Council refused to honour an undertaking it gave to backdate the allowance to November 2022.
• the Council did not respond to their request to include the words, ‘unless in full-time education or training’ in B’s SGO support plan, either at the time or in the complaint response.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
6. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 1, as amended)
7. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered information provided by the Ms M and Mr F, including the Council’s response to their complaint.
9. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

10. I will consider each of Ms M and Mr F’s complaints in turn.

B should have been considered a ‘looked after child’ when he was ‘placed’ with them in summer 2018.

11. Ms M and Mr F say the Council arranged for B to live with them. The Council says it was a private arrangement between Ms M and Mr F and B’s mother.
12. If the Council arranged for B to live with Ms M and Mr F, he would have been a ‘looked after child’ and Ms M and Mr F would have received fostering allowance.
13. Ms M and Mr F say three judges told them the Council should have been paying fostering allowance when they applied for a Special Guardianship Order in 2022.
14. B has lived with Ms M and Mr F since 2018. They complained to the Council more than 12 months after a judge told them they may have been entitled to an allowance, and to us considerably more than 12 months after that. It is too late for us to consider their complaint now.

The Council should have ‘safeguarded’ B before and after he came to live with them.

15. Ms M and Mr F complain the Council failed to protect B from harm while he was in the care of his mother before he came to live with them.
16. B has not lived with his mother since 2018. It is, therefore, too late to consider Ms M and Mr F’s complaint the Council failed to safeguard him while he was in the care of his mother.
17. Ms M and Mr F complain the Council failed to safeguard B from potential harm while he lived with them by failing to secure his legal status. Their concern is that B’s mother could have removed him from their care. I understand this did not happen. While I acknowledge their views, this complaint is speculative and there is not enough injustice to justify an investigation.

They were unfairly blamed for delays in their application for a Special Guardianship Order (SGO).

18. Ms M and Mr F believe they have been unfairly blamed for delays in their Special Guardianship Order application.
19. Their application appears to have taken a long time.
20. We cannot consider complaints about court action, including Ms M and Mr F’s application for a Special Guardianship Order.
21. Ms M and Mr F also complained about delays in the Council’s response to their complaint. I calculated the Council appears to have taken seven months too long to complete the complaints process. However, the Council arranged an independent investigation and provided a full and detailed to all of Ms M and Mr F’s complaints, including those from 2018 which were considerably more than 12 months old. In the circumstances, I do not consider the delay caused sufficient injustice to justify investigation of the Council’s complaint handling.

The Council did not use its discretion to consider B’s complex needs in terms of the extra costs they incur, both before and during the SGO assessment

22. Ms M and Mr F listed the extensive ‘set up’ costs they incurred when B came to live with them in the summer of 2018, and the costs they have incurred for transport and activities. They are unhappy with the financial support offered following their SGO allowance assessment and believe the Council should pay more because of B’s additional needs.
23. The complaint about ‘set up’ costs and the support they received before they secured a Special Guardianship Order is late and there are no grounds for us to investigate it now.
24. Following Ms M and Mr F’s application for a Special Guardianship Order, the Council has agreed to provide financial support. It is paying SGO allowance.
25. Ms M and Mr F want payments in addition to the SGO allowance for additional costs they say they face because of B’s needs. The evidence they provided shows the Council has considered their request. It has agreed to some of Ms M and Mr F’s requests for additional financial support (for travel, for example) but not others (funding for an activity). The Council gave reasons for its decisions. Ms M and Mr F disagree. However, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating their complaint.

The Council removed the words “[B] was previously a looked after child” from the final SGO support plan in July 2023.

26. If the Council had arranged for B to live with Ms M and Mr F in 2018, he would have been classed as a ‘looked after’ child. Children who were once ‘looked after’ by the Council are entitled to support once they reach adulthood. Ms M and Mr F believe B should be entitled to this support.
27. I understand the support was included in an early SGO support plan, but later removed. The Council said it was a mistake to have included it.
28. As it is too late for us to consider B’s status when he first came to live with Ms M and Mr F, there is no way for us to consider Ms M and Mr F’s complaint about the changes made to the SGO support plan in July 2023. We cannot decide whether B is entitled to support. We cannot achieve the outcome Ms M and Mr F want.

The Council refused their many requests for financial support, including when they were faced with homelessness.

29. This complaint overlaps with complaints 1 and 4 above.
30. Ms M and Mr F listed the many occasions over the years they have asked for financial support, or believe they have been promised financial support that was not forthcoming. It is too late to consider matters before 2023.
31. The Council has paid SGO allowance since 2023. As noted above, there is no evidence of fault in the Council’s consideration of their request for additional support.

The Council used an unlawful policy to calculate their SGO allowance, which meant they also received less ‘pre-SGO allowance’. The Council refused to honour an undertaking it gave to backdate the allowance to November 2022.

32. Ms M and Mr F complained about financial assessments undertaken by the Council and the payments they received. They alleged the Council was applying an unlawful policy and paying some carers less than others. The Council explained this was not the case but acknowledged it had made an administrative error and failed to pass on a cost of living increase.
33. Ms M and Mr F said their payments were finally sorted out in July 2023. However, they complain the Council has not backdated the ‘correction’ to November 2022. They believe the Council owes them approximately £400.
34. We will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation of the payments, and any fault in the decision not to backdate the payment has not caused sufficient injustice.

The Council did not respond to their request to include the words, ‘unless in full-time education or training’ in B’s SGO support plan, either at the time or in the complaint response.

35. Ms M and Mr F want the Council to commit to providing SGO allowance for B until he is 18, unless he is in full-time education or training, in which case they want the support to continue.
36. Regulations allow the Council to consider a young person aged over 18 in full-time education or training who received financial support immediately before his 18th birthday as a child for the purpose of the regulations.
37. B is not yet 18. The Council must review his SGO support plan every year, so there is still time for the Council to consider Ms M and Mr F’s request nearer the time. There is not enough injustice for us to investigate the matter now.

Back to top

Final decision

38. We will not investigate Ms M and Mr F’s complaint about the Council’s involvement in arrangements for B to live with them in 2018 because it is too late. We will not investigate their complaint about the support they receive from the Council to care for B because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman