Council criticised for handling of application to become foster carer

The woman behind the complaint, Miss X, complained that the application process took almost two years with poor communication, contradictory information and repeated delays.

Miss X enquired with the council about becoming a foster carer in May 2023. The council carried out an initial visit to Miss X’s home on 12 June 2023, said the Ombudsman.

The council asked Miss X to confirm with her landlord that they did not object to her fostering or the conversion of the property. On receipt of this confirmation, the council then invited Miss X to apply to be a foster carer.

The council started the statutory checks and on 31 July 2023 told Miss X her application had progressed to Stage 2. It said an officer would contact her to discuss the process.

An officer visited Miss X on 5 September 2023 to begin the assessment. Miss X had a medical assessment in October 2023, and in November and December 2023, the council chased references for Miss X.

The Ombudsman said: “It is unclear what happened in the following months. The council’s records do not detail any further action until February 2025, however Miss X provided a copy of a message from the assessing officer on 23 September 2024. The officer asked to visit Miss X with their manager to discuss concerns that had arisen regarding an earlier visit with Miss X in 2017.”

The Ombudsman added: “Miss X says neither the assessing officer nor their manager contacted her again. When the council passed Miss X’s case to another officer to complete the assessment, she queried the outstanding concerns. Miss X says the new assessor told her there were no issues from 2017.”

The new assessor completed the assessment on 18 February 2025 and sent it to the panel advisor for quality assurance.

The panel advisor highlighted gaps in the assessment and noted Miss X’s medical was now over a year old. They also raised concerns about Miss X’s availability given the needs of her birth children and the space in the home.

Officers visited Miss X on 7 March 2025. Following the visit, the council wrote to Miss X on 14 March 2025 to advise her application would not progress any further.

It said the key areas of concern were:

• the amended layout of Miss X’s property had led to limited communal areas that may not sufficiently accommodate both the household and a foster child;
• the presence of mould in the property did not meet The Standards of Care or Health and Safety requirements; and
• the condition of the garden fell short of The Standards of Care or Health and Safety requirements.

Miss X was disappointed with the decision and questioned why the issues were not raised earlier, considering the council had visited twice.

The council arranged a virtual meeting to discuss Miss X’s concerns and then responded formally on 28 April 2025.

Miss X was not satisfied with the response and asked for her complaint to be considered further. She also asked for a full review of her case.

The council responded again at stage 1 of its complaint process on 25 June 2025. It confirmed the primary reason for the decision to close her assessment was the size and layout of her property.

The council also clarified that Miss X’s status as a single parent and her past relationship history were not factors that led to the closure of her assessment.

The report and Miss X’s comments were presented to the fostering panel in June 2025 and the council closed the case.

Miss X remained dissatisfied and asked the Ombudsman to investigate her concerns.

The Ombudsman said: “In response to my enquiries, the council acknowledges there were delays in progressing the assessment. […] The council also accepts the concerns which ultimately informed the decision not to continue the assessment should have been identified, considered and communicated more clearly at an earlier stage. It says questions about the recorded status of Miss X’s home were identified at the initial visit. But the full implications of the size, layout, overcrowding and shared living arrangements were not clearly resolved at that stage.”

Analysing the issue of delay, the Ombudsman said: “The council’s website sets out the fostering process it follows. It states it aims to complete stage 1 within two months, and to complete stage 2 within four months. The National Minimum Standards also require the fostering panel to make a recommendation on the suitability of a prospective foster career within eight months of receiving the application.

“In this instance, the council took 20 months to complete stage 2 and produce a report and a further 4 months to present the report to the fostering panel. Delays of this nature are clearly unacceptable and amount to fault.”

The Ombudsman also found fault in the way the council responded to Miss X’s complaint.

The report said: “The council has a two-stage complaints process, but both responses to Miss X’s complaints state they are stage 1 responses. The council acknowledges it logged both complaints as stage one complaints but says the response of 25 June 2025 was a stage two response as it was escalated to an Assistant Director.

“The failure to correctly identify the response of 25 June 2025 meant Miss X was not given clear information regarding the next stage of her complaint and was not signposted to the Ombudsman’s service.”

Concluding the case, the Ombudsman found that had it not been for the faults identified, Miss X would have known much sooner, potentially following the initial visit, that her property did not meet the requirements for fostering. Mrs X would then have been able to consider her options and may have contacted an independent fostering agency sooner.

To remedy the injustice caused, the council was recommended to:

• Apologise to Miss X for the faults identified and the distress, frustration and uncertainty.
• Make a symbolic payment of £500 to Miss X to recognise the distress, frustration and uncertainty she experienced and the wasted time she spent on the matter.

The London Borough of Hillingdon has been approached for comment.

Lottie Winson