2 hours ago
7
Princess had a hard start in life. Her father drank too much, and referrals were made to social services. As she got older, she started going missing, telling police officers she was being physically abused by her parents, who in turn claimed they could not manage her behaviour. She was eventually taken into care amid concerns about self-harm, aggression and exploitation outside the home.
Even though social workers described her as a lovely child, they struggled to find her a permanent home capable of keeping her safe in England’s dysfunctional, largely outsourced residential care system.
Her social workers were left with no lawful options. Instead, they placed her in hastily cobbled-together illegal provision. Princess was sent to live in a series of unregulated placements, including 11 different Airbnbs or hotel rooms and two “barren and inhospitable” houses, for the best part of a year.
A safeguarding review last year found that the illegal homes could not meet her needs. She continued to self-harm and hurt staff. She sometimes lived in empty rooms, with as many as nine carers dressed in protective clothing. One police officer said: “If she lived with her parents and I came into this house, I’d be removing her for serious neglect.”
Shocking though Princess’s situation was, similar scenarios play out hundreds of times a year in children’s services departments throughout the country. According to the children’s commissioner for England, Rachel de Souza, these children are being endangered by the continued use of illegal care homes, which, an investigation by the Guardian and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ) has found, have been paid £250m over the last two years by councils in England.
De Souza said: “My previous research has uncovered [Princess’s] story is far from an isolated case. This investigation continues to raise serious questions about the millions spent by local authorities on placements when they cannot guarantee that vulnerable children are receiving the safeguarding and quality of care they need.”
Councils are increasingly turning to illegal provision because the mainstream, profit-driven care market is failing to accommodate rising numbers of vulnerable teenagers, with registered homes often too far away or incapable of meeting their needs. This has generated a growing shadow market for unlawful care, where huge sums are paid for unregulated placements.
The safeguarding review into Princess’s case concluded she was harmed by the council’s failure to find a suitable placement for her. She told the review she hated her time in care and it made her issues worse.
A Guardian and TBIJ investigation has established that the companies staffing the illegal homes where Princess lived for almost a year were paid more than £1m by Peterborough city council. The companies were not named in the review.
Thornbury Nursing Services, which is based in Bristol, was paid £61,000 for staffing her unregistered placements. The company is ultimately owned by the Canadian private equity firm Onex via Acacium Group. Onex announced it had $275m available to distribute to shareholders in 2026.
after newsletter promotion
Council payment records obtained as part of the investigation show Thornbury Nursing Services also received £3.8m from four councils for staffing five other illegal placements during 2024 and 2025.
Thornbury said it complied with all relevant laws. It said it supplied healthcare staff when there were limited options but did not operate children’s homes, adding: “Responsibility for accommodation and placement decisions sits with the relevant local authorities.”
Another agency, CAMHS Professionals, was paid more than £500m pounds for staffing Princess’s unregistered placements. It said it supplied a large team of qualified nurses at short notice to a home commissioned by Peterborough council. “CAMHS Professionals did not provide the home for this young person,” it said.
Peterborough council said it secured the properties but commissioned the companies to provide care and support for Princess. It said unregistered placements were only used when there were no regulated alternatives and were subject to monitoring visits.
