Summary: We find no fault in the way the Council handled Miss X’s complaint about lack of respite care for her foster child. The Council found fault and injustice, apologised, made a payment to Miss X, and improved its service, as the statutory complaint investigation recommended. The Council has agreed to make a further payment to remedy some outstanding injustice.

The complaint

1. Miss O complained on behalf of Miss X and the child in Miss X’s care that the Council did not provide the agreed respite care for the child. Miss O complained that although the Council upheld the complaint, it had not provided respite or a daytime placement.
2. Miss O said this caused Miss X distress, frustration, anger and anxiety.

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. 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).
6. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
7. We may investigate complaints made on behalf of someone else if they have given their consent. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. Miss X has given written consent for Miss O to represent this complaint on her behalf. I therefore consider Miss O is a suitable person to represent this complaint on Miss X’s behalf.
9. I considered the information and documents provided by Miss O and the Council. I spoke to Miss O about Miss X’s complaint. Miss O and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments received before I reached a final decision.
10. I considered the relevant legislation and statutory guidance, set out below. I also considered the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

11. 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.
12. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
13. 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 to look into the complaint and an independent person who is responsible for overseeing the investigation and ensuring its independence.
14. 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.
15. 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.

What happened

16. Miss X is a foster carer. In 2023, a foster child (B) moved in with Miss X. B had certain needs and was meant to get respite care. Respite was intended to give Miss X a necessary break from caring duties. The Council did not put respite in place.
17. In 2024, Miss X complained. The Council sympathised but said there was a national shortage of the kind of respite B needed. Miss O asked the Council to consider Miss X’s complaint at stage two.
18. The stage two investigation broadly upheld Miss X’s complaint. The Council fully accepted it had not been able to put the agreed respite in place. The investigating officer called it “an emergency” and said Miss X could not be expected to continue providing care for B without a break.
19. The investigating officer said Miss X had worked 24 hours a day, every day, for two years, without a break. They said this was unfair and it was unreasonable to expect Miss X to continue. The investigating officer made a number of recommendations about implementing respite as soon as possible, making a payment to Miss X to reflect the impact of the lack of respite care, and improving the Council’s service.
20. Miss O asked the Council to consider Miss X’s complaint at stage three.
21. The stage three review panel found significant and ongoing delays putting the respite in place. The panel said it was “stark” that ultimately the first two stages of the complaint investigation had not led to any real change for B or Miss X. The panel noted that the Council had offered Miss X £2000, but she had not accepted this.
22. The panel made a number of recommendations including a larger payment for Miss X given the impact of the lack of respite, closer oversight of the case to ensure immediate action, and service improvements.
23. In its response to the review panel’s findings, the Council told Miss X and Miss O how it was meeting the panel’s recommendations. The Council offered Miss X £3500, which Miss X later accepted.
24. Miss O then brought Miss X’s complaint to the Ombudsman.
25. In early 2026, B began accessing respite.

Analysis

26. 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. Because of this, if a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it.
27. However, we may 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.
28. In this case, Miss X’s complaint was that the Council did not provide the agreed respite care for the foster child in her care. Miss O complained that although the Council upheld Miss X’s complaint, it still had not provided respite or a daytime placement.
29. I find no flaws in the stage two investigation or stage three review panel that could call the findings into question. The complaints process rightly upheld Miss X’s complaint.
30. I have investigated the timeliness of the statutory complaint investigation, whether the Council properly considered the findings and recommendations at stages two and three, and whether the Council completed the recommendations without delay.

Timeliness

31. Miss O asked the Council to consider Miss X’s complaint at stage two in late 2024. The Council had a maximum of 65 working days to complete stage two. This would have been late March 2025. The Council completed stage two in early April 2025, nine working days late. I do not find a delay of nine working days is enough to constitute fault.
32. Miss O asked for stage three in mid-April 2025. The Council had 30 working days to hold the review panel. The Council held the review panel 34 working days after the request. I do not find a delay of four working days is enough to constitute fault.
33. I find the Council sent its response to the review panel’s report within 20 working days of the panel hearing, in line with the guidance.
34. For these reasons, I do not find the Council at fault for the timeliness of its complaint handling.

Consideration of the complaint investigation’s findings

35. The stage two investigation and the stage three review panel made a number of recommendations. I am satisfied the Council properly considered all the findings and recommendations.
36. The Council accepted the majority of the recommendations and took action. I have considered the recommendations the Council decided not to follow. I am satisfied there were good reasons for the Council’s decisions.

Completing the recommendations

37. I find the Council completed the agreed recommendations. However, the most pressing recommendation, and the driving force throughout the complaint, was to put respite in place.
38. Miss O complained to us in late 2025 that although the Council upheld the complaint, it still had not provided respite for B. B began accessing respite in early 2026.
39. The Council made a payment to Miss X of £3500 to remedy the injustice caused by the lack of respite. The Council offered Miss X this payment in June 2025. I have considered our published guidance on remedies, and I find this was an appropriate and proportionate remedy for the level of injustice caused to Miss X between 2023 (when B moved in) and June 2025 (when the Council made this offer).
40. However, the respite was not put in place until early 2026. This means Miss X suffered an ongoing injustice between June 2025 and early 2026 that was not remedied. I have addressed this below.

Back to top

Action

41. Within four weeks of this decision, the Council has agreed to make a payment of £1000 to Miss X.
42. In arriving at this amount, I considered our published guidance on remedies and the Council’s previous payment. I took into consideration the significance of the impact on Miss X and her distress, frustration, anger and anxiety.
43. I find that £1000 is an appropriate and proportionate remedy for the level of remaining injustice.
44. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above action.

Back to top

Decision

45. I find no fault with the Council’s statutory consideration of Miss X’s complaint. The Council has agreed to take further action to remedy the remaining injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman