Archive has 1126 results
-
London Borough of Bexley (21 011 314)
Statement Not upheld Disabled children 07-Mar-2022
Summary: Mrs B complained the Council unreasonably refused to award her son a blue badge. I have not investigated the complaint as the Council has since reconsidered its decision and awarded the blue badge. The Ombudsman could not achieve anything further for Mrs B.
-
Bedford Borough Council (21 002 891)
Statement Upheld Child protection 07-Mar-2022
Summary: Miss X complains that the Council was wrong to carry out a child protection investigation, that its investigation was flawed and that a decision to place the children on a child protection plan was incorrect. She says this has caused stress to her family and damage to her reputation and health. The Council is at fault with regards to information sharing with the child protection conference and an inaccuracy in the conference report. Only the inaccuracy caused injustice to Miss X. The Council has agreed to a financial remedy, an apology and to place a note on the record correcting the inaccuracy.
-
Crawley Borough Council (21 017 707)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 07-Mar-2022
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about information a social worker provided in Court. This is because the law prevents us from investigating matters which have been decided in court.
-
Staffordshire County Council (21 016 573)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 07-Mar-2022
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement with the complainant’s family. This is because the complaint is about matters considered and decided in court. It is therefore outside our jurisdiction. It is reasonable for Miss X to return to court if she is unhappy with her children’s living arrangements. The actions of the Council’s staff cannot be separated from matters we have no jurisdiction to consider.
-
Swindon Borough Council (21 013 209)
Statement Upheld Other 07-Mar-2022
Summary: The Council is at fault for delaying consideration of this complaint at stage three of the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to consider the complaint at stage three and make a payment to remedy the time and trouble its delay has caused her.
-
London Borough of Hounslow (21 014 314)
Statement Upheld Looked after children 06-Mar-2022
Summary: The Council is at fault for delaying consideration of this complaint at stage one of the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to consider the complaint at stage one of the procedure without further delay.
-
London Borough of Croydon (21 016 510)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Fostering 04-Mar-2022
Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about Miss X’s time in foster care in the early 1990s. There is no good reason to exercise discretion to do so.
-
Plymouth City Council (20 012 915)
Statement Upheld Friends and family carers 04-Mar-2022
Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to provide him with sufficient information regarding how the Special Guardianship allowance would be calculated and did not explain that it would be means tested. Mr X also complained the Council did not respond to his queries regarding the calculation of the allowance. The Council’s failure to provide clear and consistent information regarding the way in which the special guardianship allowance is calculated and how means testing would affect Mr and Mrs X amounts to fault. This fault has caused Mr and Mrs X an injustice.
-
Southend-on-Sea City Council (20 010 865)
Statement Upheld Disabled children 03-Mar-2022
Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not provide appropriate support to meet her child, Y’s, needs. She said it also did not complete a parent carer assessment with her and about poor complaint handling. There was no fault in how the Council assessed Y’s needs and decided they were not eligible for social support. However, it failed to refer them for a mentor as agreed, did not complete an adequate parent carer assessment with Ms X and delayed investigating her complaint. The Council will offer to refer Y for a mentor if still appropriate, complete a parent carer assessment with Ms X and pay Ms X £200 in acknowledgement of the frustration and uncertainty caused.
-
Statement Upheld Child protection 03-Mar-2022
Summary: Miss X complained about the way the Council removed her child from her care. She said this had a significant emotional impact on her and her child, impacted her mental health, and caused unnecessary distress. Miss X also complained that the Council failed to respond to her complaint within timeframes set out in law. She said she spent time and trouble chasing the Council. Largely we do not find the Council at fault. However, we find the Council at fault for a delay sending a complaint response. This caused Miss X injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X.