Hillingdon Council has apologised and paid £500 to a woman whose foster carer application was rejected after more than two years, with the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) finding multiple faults in the council’s handling.
Two-year process ends in rejection
The woman, referred to as Miss X in the report, was kept in a process lasting over two years before being told in 2025 that her home was unsuitable for fostering, despite the council having visited the property in 2023.
The LGSCO identified several faults, including poor communication, unaddressed long-term delays attributed to internal restructuring, contradictory explanations during the complaints process, and a failure to signpost the applicant to independent oversight.
The ombudsman concluded that, had the council been straight with her from the start, she could have looked into alternative options such as contacting an independent fostering agency. Instead she was “put to unnecessary time and trouble”.
Home visit and application timeline
In May 2023, the council visited Miss X’s home, and an officer noted that she lived in a two-bedroom property that had been converted into a four-bed. She partitioned the rooms to make space for fostering.
Two months later, the council invited Miss X to apply to become a foster carer and progressed her application to Stage 2. Thereafter, a formal assessment took place.
Between September 2023 and February 2025, minimal progress was made. In September 2024, an assessing officer asked to visit to discuss “concerns that had arisen regarding an earlier visit with Miss X in 2017”. However, no follow-up occurred, and a new assessor later confirmed that “there was no issue from 2017”.
Breach of national standards
Under National Fostering Minimum Standards, assessment processes are supposed to be presented to a fostering panel within eight months. In this instance, Hillingdon Council took more than double that – 20 months – with the final rejection issued 24 months later.
In March 2025, the completed assessment was reviewed by a panel which found that Miss X’s medical was “now over a year old” following council delays. The panel also flagged concerns about living space.
Following a joint visit on March 7, 2025, Hillingdon Council notified Miss X on March 14 that her application would not proceed. The council cited concerns that “the amended layout of Miss X’s property had led to limited communal areas… the presence of mould in the property… the condition of the garden”.
Ombudsman findings and council response
During the investigation, Miss X reiterated that her housing officer had visited twice and confirmed her property was suitable for fostering, and that concerns about communal space, mould and the garden had not been raised earlier in the process. Miss X was concerned the council had introduced new reasons for rejecting her application in response to her complaint.
The ombudsman ruled that the delay between Miss X’s application and its presentation to the panel was a fault. On the property issues, the ombudsman said: “The failure to identify and communicate to Miss X that the size, layout, and limited communal space at her property made it unsuitable for fostering is also fault.”
They added: “The council was aware from the initial visit in June 2023 of the layout and space available at Miss X’s property.”
The ombudsman said: “But for these faults Miss X would have known much sooner, potentially following the initial visit, that her property did not meet the requirements for fostering. It is possible that had the council identified and properly considered the issues with her property at the outset it would not have invited Miss X to apply to become a foster carer.
“Miss X would then have been able to consider her options and may have contacted an independent fostering agency sooner. The council’s actions raised Miss X’s expectations that she would be accepted as a foster carer and delayed her approach to an independent agency.
“The fault also meant Miss X experienced distress, frustration and uncertainty for an extended period and was put to unnecessary time and trouble.”
Hillingdon Council said: “We accept the decision of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and have met all the agreed actions in its report. We have apologised to the complainant and reviewed our internal processes to ensure we best serve residents and meet their needs.”
The council also made a symbolic payment of £500 to recognise the distress caused and wasted time she had spent on the matter.
