Richmond Council "let down" a boy in foster care after failing to find him a new placement before his previous arrangement came to a "chaotic" end, according to a watchdog.

Richmond Council was asked to pay the boy's previous foster carer £500 after she experienced "considerable distress".

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman report found the council at fault for failing to arrange another placement for the young boy, referred to as B, in the extended period of notice his previous foster carer, named Mrs M, gave. It said the council "left Mrs M and B in the lurch and was responsible for a chaotic end to the placement". Mrs M described the events as "extremely traumatic" for her and B.

The council placed B with Mrs M several years ago. Mrs M was a foster carer for a national fostering agency and lives a long way from the borough.

Mrs M gave the council notice to terminate B's placement on April 8, 2022, as she was due to have surgery the following month and needed time to recover. The report said she had been waiting for the operation for "a very long time" and that she gave the council "more notice than she was required to give" as the fostering agreement asked for 28 days' notice.

The council held a meeting on April 20 to explore options which might avoid disrupting B's placement with Mrs M. The report said the council and Mrs M did not come to an agreement, so it began to look for a new placement.

The minutes of a review meeting, according to the report, said Mrs M had reported her surgery was scheduled for May 28 and that B would need to move by May 20. The report added the council and Mrs M's supervising social worker at the fostering agency "tried to persuade her to delay the surgery", which she declined.

Mrs M asked the council to collect B from school the following day and has not seen him since. The report said the council did not find him a new foster carer within the notice period and had to "arrange an emergency placement some distance away".

The report said Mrs M complained to the council, which accepted it failed to arrange a placement for B in time but said it felt it did everything it could. The council also claimed Mrs M agreed B could stay until the week beginning May 23, the report added, which she denied.

The ombudsman accepted there is a national shortage of foster care placements and the council was "unable to find an alternative placement despite its efforts".

But the report said: "The national shortage of foster placements does not justify the council's failure to make arrangements for B in time for Mrs M's surgery. It requires the council to have a 'plan B'. Otherwise, everyone is left in the lurch. Regrettably, that is what happened here.

"The council considers the timing of Mrs M's decision to end B's placement was not in his interests. This, too, is not in dispute. There are other, more appropriate procedures councils can follow to review a foster carer's approval if the council has concerns."

The ombudsman also found there was "little evidence" to support the council's claim that Mrs M had agreed B could stay until the week beginning May 23.

The report added: "I find the council's failure to plan for the end of B's placement with Mrs M was fault. It caused Mrs M significant distress. I am not investigating a complaint from B, but it is clear the council let him down too."

The ombudsman recommended the council apologise to Mrs M and pay her £500, along with reviewing its procedures for disrupted foster care placements to include contingency plans in case it is unable to find another placement in time.

A Richmond Council spokesperson said: "We have complied with the recommendations from the ombudsman. We have taken the learning from this complaint to ensure our service continues to improve."