Ealing Council, together with Hounslow and Southwark councils, has been told to apologise and pay compensation to a couple after the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman found faults in the handling of a proposed adoptive placement.
The faults included prospective adopters being led to prepare for adoption leave before the match had been formally approved, delays in arranging a meeting with a medical adviser and failures to properly record key meetings and communications during the matching process.
Ealing Council was the lead authority for Adopt London West, the regional adoption agency responsible for finding an adoptive family for the child. Hounslow Council was the child’s corporate parent, while Southwark Council was responsible for assessing and approving the prospective adopters.
The decision, made public last week (16 July 2026), relates to an adoption process in 2023. The Ombudsman found the faults caused the prospective adopters avoidable distress, grief and uncertainty, as well as unnecessary time and trouble in pursuing their complaints, but said it could not conclude the proposed adoption would have gone ahead had the faults not occurred.
The couple had been approved as prospective adopters and believed they were on course to have a child placed with them, but the proposed placement did not go ahead after several “meet before match” meetings.
As part of the Ombudsman’s recommendations, Ealing, Hounslow and Southwark councils must each apologise to the couple and pay them £750 in recognition of the injustice caused, amounting to £2,250 in total.
Ealing Council was also told it must reimburse expenses the couple incurred during “meet before match” meetings after the Ombudsman found they had not been told in advance that the costs would not be covered.
In its report, the Ombudsman also recommended a number of service improvements for the councils and regional adoption agencies involved, including clearer written guidance for prospective adopters on “meet before match” meetings, expenses and photography, as well as improvements covering encrypted messaging and the handling of adoption-related complaints.
Councillor Gary Malcolm, leader of Ealing Liberal Democrats, told EALING.NEWS: “Liberal Democrats are again truly shocked by this case relating to a proposed adoptive placement. The council say they have strengthened processes but in reality they have plugged one gap in a process but another will appear in the near future.
“Only a root and branch review can highlight and future proof the council. Otherwise I fear more people will suffer distress and grief.”
Speaking to EALING.NEWS, Councillor Clare Welsby, group leader of Ealing Green Party, said: “It is important to remember there is a child at the centre of this. There are enough vulnerabilities in having arrived at adoption. Adoption is life changing for the child and for the adoptive parents and must be handled with great sensitivity, as well as high quality professional processes and practice.
“The circumstances will always be complex, there were three local authorities and the adoption agency involved, as well. Prospective adoptive parents must be confident in the process with clear communication, throughout an inevitably emotional process. Good record keeping whatever format is essential to this. It seems this was not the case. It is very worrying to see yet another Ealing failure highlighted by the Ombudsman.”
Ealing Council
The Ombudsman found Ealing Council, as the lead authority for Adopt London West and the family-finding agency, shared responsibility for leading the prospective adopters to prepare for adoption leave before the match had been formally approved.
It also found fault with guidance on expenses and “meet before match” meetings, shortcomings in record keeping and written analysis, and the failure to retain messages sent through an encrypted messaging app as part of the official case records.
The Ombudsman noted that Ealing Council has since introduced new guidance covering “meet before match” meetings, transition expenses and the retention of encrypted messages.
An Ealing Council spokesperson told EALING.NEWS: “We have accepted the Ombudsman’s findings and recommendations in full and are sorry for the distress, grief, time and trouble caused to the complainants and have apologised to them for the faults and injustice which happened in this case.
“Since these events, we have taken swift action to strengthen our practice alongside our local authority partner and the other regional adoption agency including clearer guidance for prospective adopters about the matching and placement process and when formal adoption decisions are made. We have also strengthened procedures around communication, consent, record-keeping and the coordinated handling of adoption-related complaints to help ensure a more consistent experience for families.”
Hounslow Council
The Ombudsman found Hounslow Council, as the child’s corporate parent and final decision-maker, was at fault for delaying arrangements for the prospective adopters to meet a medical adviser, poor record keeping and analysis throughout the matching process and failing to retain encrypted messages.
It also found fault over delays in collecting the child’s belongings after the proposed placement did not go ahead and Hounslow Council’s failure to lead a coordinated statutory complaints investigation involving all three councils.
The Ombudsman did not find fault with the way safeguarding concerns raised by the prospective adopters were referred to Hounslow Council, accepting that information about the outcome could not be shared because the couple did not have parental responsibility for the child.
A Hounslow Council spokesperson told EALING.NEWS: “We have accepted the Ombudsman’s recommendations in full and have apologised to Mr and Mrs X. We have also taken swift action to strengthen our practice alongside our regional adoption agency, Adopt London West, in response to the findings”.
Southwark Council
The Ombudsman found Southwark Council, which assessed and approved the prospective adopters, failed to properly observe and record a key “meet before match” meeting and did not adequately record a meeting with a psychologist that later influenced the decision not to proceed with the proposed placement.
It also identified shortcomings in the council’s record keeping during the adoption process.
However, the Ombudsman did not find fault with Southwark Council’s handling of the couple’s DBS checks or annual review, and accepted the council acted appropriately in referring safeguarding concerns to Hounslow Council.
EALING.NEWS has contacted Southwark Council for comment.
