Summary: Mr B complains about the time taken by the Council to provide suitable accommodation for his family after he and his wife became foster carers for their grandchildren, some with special needs. The Ombudsman finds there was fault by the Council in this matter causing injustice to the family, for which a remedy has been agreed.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr B, complains the Council has failed to take appropriate steps to consider and address the accommodation needs of his family, which includes himself and his partner both of whom are disabled, and four grandchildren for whom they became kinship carers at the Council’s request. Some of the children also have significant diagnosed needs. An adult daughter, who is expecting twins, also lives in the family’s two-bedroom Council tenancy.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered all the information provided by Mr B about his complaint. I made written enquiries of the Council and took account of the information and evidence it provided in reply.
5. I provided Mr B and the Council with a draft of this decision and took account their comments on it.

Back to top

What I found

Background

6. Mr B and his wife became kinship foster carers for their grandchildren in August 2018 and the fostering arrangement was formalised by the court in January 2019. At the time of the events complained of, the household also included Mr B and Mrs B’s adult daughter. They were all living in a two-bedroom Council tenancy, adapted for Mr and Mrs B’s needs but not those of the children.

National Minimum Standards in Fostering

7. There are National Minimum Standards applicable to the provision of fostering services. Standard 10 refers to the provision of a suitable physical environment for a foster child and notes the standard is that “The foster home can comfortably accommodate all who live there including where appropriate any suitable aids and adaptations provided and fitted by suitable trained staff when caring for a disabled child”. It states “In the foster home, each child over the age of three should have their own bedroom. If this is not possible, the sharing of a bedroom is agreed by each child’s responsible authority and each child has their own area within the bedroom”. Standard 30 refers to family and friends foster carers receiving the support they require to meet the needs of children placed with them. It sates , and notes that “In seeking to support family and friends foster carers, the local authority fostering service works closely with the wider local authority children’s services department, other departments, and agencies such as housing, to mitigate any limitations to the carer’s capacity to care for a foster child”.
8. Mr B’s two-bedroom home did not meet the requisite standards for his expanded family in terms of space or adaptations.

Recognition of unsuitable housing

9. The Council’s social care records noted in August 2018 that support was needed to identify a larger property more suitable for the children. Mr B and his wife were having to sleep on an inflatable mattress in the living room. Records say: “The bedroom arrangements will need to be resolved as a matter of urgency to ensure each child has their own bed and that family do indeed move to a larger property and are supported with achieving this”. While it was noted that the Council could not at this time anticipate the courts final decision on the permanence plan for the children’s care, the matter would need to be progressed as quickly as possible through liaison with housing, “working together as corporate parents for these children in resolving what is an unsafe and inadequate living situation”.

Mr B applies for re-housing

10. The Council received Mr B’s application for re-housing on 22 August 2018. About a month later Mr B emailed the Council asking for help. It replied straight away advising him to contact its homesearch team and noting that special priority is given to foster carers. It explained that flexibility on location would help given the lack of four or five-bedroom homes in the Council’s area.

Occupational therapy assessment to inform housing needs

11. It was recognised by social care and housing that an occupational therapist (OT) assessment was needed to inform housing needs and the possibility of a direct let offer being made, if a suitable home could be identified which was capable of accommodating the necessary adaptations. A joint assessment to cover both the children’s needs and those of the adults took place on 19 October 2018.

Consideration of extension of the existing home

12. In the meantime, the housing department was progressing feasibility studies for the possibility of extending Mr B’s current home as well as looking at whether finding a larger property quickly which could also be adapted quickly would be the best option. Even without assessment of the needs of the children, it was clear the family needed a through-floor lift and a wet-room, or a ground-floor bedroom and bathroom, and the family was already on the housing list with medical priority. While qualifying for a direct let would give them even greater priority, the principal issue was likely to be the shortage of larger homes.
13. In early November Mrs B told the social worker she felt the family was not being kept updated about what was happening in respect of re-housing. Liaison between housing and social care is evidenced in the Council’s files. Agreed actions included that social care would establish its financial contribution to the home extension in principle, and chase up the OT report for the children as this was causing a delay to the decision about re-housing; and housing would update the family, establish the re-housing and extension options, and convene a meeting with all professionals including the OT followed by a joint meeting with family once other actions had been completed. The housing manager did speak to Mr B at this point and it was agreed they would provide updates on a regular basis: he was invited to call if he needed any information in the interim.
14. Housing received the OT assessment the same day. It noted the two older children needed their own personal space to enable them to manage escalating behaviours when anxious and so they would benefit from having separate bedrooms. The recommendation was for a five-bed house with a level access shower, a bath (as one child cannot tolerate showers) and a secure garden.
15. Housing then had to assess if extension to the current home could meet these needs. Plans which had been drawn up were passed to both OTs (children’s and adults), but in their view the proposals would not meet needs because they did not provide a through-floor lift for Mr B, (or appropriate space for it) and the extension would take up most of the garden, which the children needed. There had been some confusion caused because one OT report for Mr B had referred to a stair-lift and then an updated one to a through-floor lift being needed.
16. In mid-November there was a case conference attended by housing and social care, to inform an understanding of all the housing requirements of the family and to agree the best way forward in respect of providing suitable housing. It was agreed that:

• The family needed a large five-bedroom property with a wet area shower and an upstairs bathroom with a bath (this could be one bathroom with wet area shower and bath or two separate rooms), two WCs, a through-floor and a secure rear garden;
• A direct let would be awarded for a five- or six-bedroom property which could be adapted to include the above or a four-bedroom property which could be extended to do so. The homesearch manager would look at the availability of suitable properties; and
• The adult’s OT and a housing manager would visit the family the following week to discuss the options and the family’s preferences, for a temporary move to a bigger properties as an interim measure until a property could be identified and extended and adapted to meet all of their needs; or to stay in the existing home and wait for a property to be identified and adapted and extended to meet their needs. Housing was to highlight at the meeting that opting for a permanent move could mean at least six months wait.

17. Mr B had confirmed the family did not want to move twice but wanted to move as soon as possible to a larger property and have any necessary works done after they moved. He set out streets and neighbourhoods which he felt were not appropriate for them and which they would prefer. At the end of November, a possible four-bedroom property was identified but Mr B said it was not in a suitable location. The Council looked at the number of larger properties in the areas not excluded by Mr B and found it to be under 100 with the likelihood of any becoming vacant soon limiting this further. It told Mr B this and asked him to consider wider areas. The Council continued to check if anything was becoming available in terms of a larger property as well as searching for potential mutual exchange options.

A suitable property is identified

18. No other properties became available which could meet the family’s needs in the areas requested until the beginning of February 2019. One four-bedroom home identified as a possibility was ruled out by Mr B as being in an unsuitable area but on the same day an adapted four-bedroom home was identified which he felt was acceptable. In terms of timescales for the completion of necessary works, the Council noted this was difficult to estimate as access was needed to do a survey and get extension designs drawn up. It noted that extensions could take upwards of six months and at this point the keys were still outstanding from the previous tenants, the property needed clearing and void works needed to be completed. Liaison with architects began on 8 February, and Mr B viewed the property on 27 February and confirmed he was happy with the offer.

What happened next

19. Mr B asked the Council for an update on 11 March and the Council replied the same day saying technical drawings were being prepared plus an application for necessary works. Once complete a housing officer would contact Mr B to go through these, with plans then being reviewed based on feedback. After that applications for planning and building control would be made and an order raised for the works. At that point the contractor would be asked to provide a programme of works with an indicative timescale for completion.
20. Mr B asked the Council for a further update on 1 April saying the family had been given a timeframe of three to six month but two months had passed with seemingly little progress and they were not receiving the regular updates they were told they would receive. On 11 April at a visit Mr B confirmed he was happy with the plans, but he asked for information about timescales.
21. Mr B asked the Council for a further update on 30 April and a reply was issued the next day. The Council explained the plans Mr B had seen were feasibility plans which now needed to be refined into full designs as required for planning and building control approval. It was chasing the architects for the feasibility and costs information after which costs would need to be approved, then full designs obtained and then an order for the works raised. The Council said that once an update was received from architects then a timeframe for the approval process and works would be advised.
22. Mr B asked the Council for a further update on 16 May, as he had been given to understand from social care staff that there was an expected moving of August 2019. On 20 May wrote again asking about timescales. The Council replied the next day saying the architect had been advised two weeks previously to prioritise this work above all other, and they had said designs would be done by end of May. After that, the designs would go to a contractor for pricing and then approval for funds would be sought and the contractor commissioned to start the works. The Council said it would work closely with the contactor to avoid delays, but it was estimated it would be July at the earliest before works would commence.
23. On 6 June the architect provided the Council with three design options for the works, and the Council visited Mr B to share these with him on 12 June: Mr B then selected one of the options.
24. Mr B asked the Council for a further update on 26 June and asked for confirmation that the anticipated moving date was still August. Replying the next day, the Council confirmed it would be later than August due to the steps that needed to be followed through first with the planning application and then costing and so on.
25. On 2 July the project surveyor asked for an order for funds to be raised so that some works could begin as soon as soon as possible, and that was done by 4 July. The architect provided drawings for costs estimates on 5 July. On 8 July it was noted by housing that children’s services had been asked to take the lead in updating the family and a social worker was due to visit the next day. It noted that a temporary move to another adapted four-bedroom bed home was being proposed if the family agreed. Although this was not in an area Mr B wanted, it was to be offered as a stopgap until the other house was ready to move into, with children’s services to provide some funding for carpets etc. Mr B declined this property however, because of the distance to the children’s school and nursery, as well as being in an area he considered was associated with drug abuse. Further, Mr B said he did not want the family to have to move more than once.
26. Mr B telephoned the Council for a further update on 25 July. The officer he spoke to was unable to give him an update on the build, but records show that updates were sought within the Council to confirm the designs were with planning. Records do not show that a call was made to Mr B at this point and he called again on 29 July. A note on the Council’s file says that Mrs B was threatening giving notice on the fostering placement at the end of August as the family could not continue living as they were. Council records show efforts were being made to enable work to start as soon as planning permission was granted and some works such as demolition began ahead of this.
27. On 20 August a note on the Council’s file said sub-contract orders had been placed for a possible start in September and if that happened they would be looking at a completion date for the extension works of around Christmas. Once planning approval was granted, the plans were passed to building control for their approval and an order was raised for the funds for the extension. On 11 September the Council asked the contractor to provide a programme for the works, which it did, saying that if the timescale could be reduced as works progressed a revised programme would be issued. The Council sent the timescale information to Mr B on 25 September.
28. On 18 November Mrs B contacted the Council raising concerns that it seemed no work had been done on the roof of the property for two weeks since beams had been put in. The contractor confirmed they were three weeks behind programme due to poor weather.
29. The Council sought an urgent update from the contractors in January 2020, seeking assurance that everything possible was being done to get the work completed. On 23 January the contractors’ manager apologised for the unacceptable situation and said that an urgent meeting was planned with its sub-contractor and an update on a handover date would be provided the next day. The work to complete the build was to be top priority. The handover date then given as 21 February 2020, which at this time the project surveyor said he was happy to commit to (although on 27 January he referred to this as an estimated date), and the progress of the contractor was to be monitored closely. On 27 January a housing manager requested a weekly update from the contractor.

The family moves to their new home

30. The family moved into the property on 16 March 2020.

Mr B’s complaint to the Council, and its response

31. Mr B complained to the Council on 23 May 2019. The Council issued its stage 1 response on 18 June 2019, which was outside the published 10-day response time. It set out the actions the Council had taken towards securing a suitable home for the family. It noted Mr B’s complaint that his autistic grandson had been shown the early-stage plans and given to understand that these reflected what would be happening, while in fact these were only proposed designs: it said that it was standard practice to consult at each stage of design to ensure that all requirements were being met, and it apologised for any negative impact on the child. It acknowledged there had been delays in the production of the full designs.
32. Mr B was dissatisfied with the response he had received, and his complaint was escalated to the next stage. In its response the Council set out that is aim had been to support the family in the best possible way and the solution put forward was exceptionally bespoke, which meant that it was challenging for the Council to deliver and that it was reliant on partner organisations to support it delivering the works needed. Main delay at this point had been in the design phase and this had been taken up with the relevant contractor. The Council said that once work was underway it would liaise closely with the contractors to make sure it was completed as quickly as possible.
33. Mr B remained dissatisfied and reiterated that his complaint was about the protracted timescale for re-housing the family and failures to keep promises made about the timescale for works. He requested escalation of his complaint to the final stage. The Council declined this request on 30 September, explaining relevant criteria were not met. It added that the extension and adaptation was now underway and moving through the necessary stages as quickly as possible. The Council acknowledged there had been a substantial underestimation of the possible completion period. It said the complexities of the case required multi-team, cross-service procedures, and there were dependencies involved particularly regarding design, planning and building control. The Council recognised there had been gaps in the overview of the process and it was taking steps to reduce the chances of a similar situation happening again. These included working on improvements with architect partners, refining the process for housing extensions, and developing a new process for fostering housing cases through a lead manager in children’s services.
34. The Council offered an apology for any distress and frustration caused, and a payment of £500 in recognition of the delay and the uncertainty caused to the family by this. The Council recognised that as Mr and Mrs B had not had a realistic time scale, this could have impacted their decision-making about whether to accept a temporary move while waiting for their permanent home to be ready. It also acknowledged that communications with the family had not been as clear as they could have been and that there had been shortfalls in the regular updates Mr B had been expecting.

Analysis

35. Mr B’s case presented the Council with particular difficulties. The family needed a large home as well as special adaptations to meet specific disability and social care needs. The Council could not immediately identify a suitable property to meet these needs, despite efforts to do so, and the evidence also shows it did consider the feasibility of other options. And it was inevitable that once a property was identified there would be a lengthy process (of planning, resourcing, commissioning, and implementing) to achieve the outcome of a suitable home. In short, the process was always going to take some time. Nevertheless, this family which included fostered children some with special needs was living in unsuitable accommodation from August 2018 to March 2020, in breach of the fostering national minimum standard. While it is reasonable to allow a Council a period of time to find suitable accommodation for a family, time taken in excess of three months was fault.
36. Mr B did limit the areas to which the family was prepared to move and refused one permanent offer and one temporary offer. He did however give reasons for this and it is understandable given the family’s specific circumstances that the family did not want to move more than once and had some concerns about suitable locations. The Council appears to have accepted those reasons. It did not challenge the grounds of unsuitability, for example by referring to social care for assessment, and it did not penalise Mr B for refusal.
37. In addition to living in unsuitable accommodation, which caused distress and inconvenience for an extended period, the family suffered disappointed expectation when they were unable to move home as quickly as they had been led to believe. Mr B was also put to some time and trouble in seeking updates and in making his complaint.

Agreed action

38. In recognition of the injustice caused to Mr B and his family by the faults identified in this case, I recommended that within four weeks of the date of the decision on this complaint the Council:

• Issue Mr B with a formal apology for the identified failings and their impact; and
• Pay Mr B £2,000 to use for the benefit of the family.

39. In reaching this recommendation I took account of a payment of £1,000 already made by the Council in summer 2019 for a holiday for the children, in acknowledgment of the family's difficult situation and their patience in respect of the housing issue.
40. The Council agreed to my recommendation.
41. I made no recommendation in respect of service improvements because the Council has already taken steps to introduce appropriate improvements.

Back to top

Final decision

42. I have completed my investigation on the basis set out above.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman