Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (16 011 447)

    Statement Upheld Adoption 03-Jul-2017

    Summary: Mr C complained the Council failed to consider his family's needs for support after they adopted a sibling group of children. There is evidence of fault and the Council has agreed to carry out a reassessment and make a payment.

  • Essex County Council (16 007 905)

    Statement Upheld Adoption 28-Jun-2017

    Summary: There was fault in the way the Council dealt with Miss X and Mr Y's application to become adopters. The Council did not address concerns it had directly with Miss X and Mr Y and as a result they withdrew from the adoption process. The Council has agreed to amend its records, apologise and pay them £250 to acknowledge the distress this caused.

  • Medway Council (16 016 161)

    Statement Not upheld Adoption 06-Jun-2017

    Summary: The Council was not at fault in how it provided support to Mrs B following her separation with Mr B, or in the advice it provided to help them manage their daughter's behaviour. Although Mr B was not happy with the advice, this does not amount to fault by the Council.

  • Lancashire County Council (16 019 133)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Adoption 02-Jun-2017

    Summary: Mr X complained that when he was adopted as a baby in the 1970's, the Council should not have placed him with a family who lived so close to his natural parents. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint further as it is too late and the reasons for investigating now are not strong enough. Also the key decisions involved will have been made by the courts. So the complaint is outside the Ombudsman's jurisdiction.

  • City Of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (16 015 543)

    Statement Upheld Adoption 26-May-2017

    Summary: In 2016 the Council wrongly told Mr X he was adopted as a child and his birth mother was a murderer. This caused Mr X distress and affected his relationship with his parents. The Council has already apologised. It took too long to consider his complaint. The Council has agreed to pay Mr X £275 and tell the Ombudsman what action in took about the data breach.

  • London Borough of Wandsworth (17 001 528)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Adoption 22-May-2017

    Summary: As a Court is currently considering the care of Mr F's child, we cannot investigate the Council's plans for the child's care or his contact with the child in the interim.

  • London Borough of Lewisham (16 018 517)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Adoption 27-Apr-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mrs M's complaint about a Court decision. The Information Commissioner's Office is better placed to consider her complaint about inaccurate information.

  • Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (16 015 694)

    Statement Upheld Adoption 20-Apr-2017

    Summary: The Council carried out a thorough and fair Stage 2 investigation but took too long. It was also at fault when it refused to hold a Stage 3 review and said the complaint should be referred to the Ombudsman instead. The Council has agreed to review its procedures relating to Stage 2 timescales and when it can make early referrals to the Ombudsman.

  • London Borough of Croydon (16 019 337)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Adoption 18-Apr-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr F's complaints about the Council's involvement in his family because a Court decided the children should be cared for by the Council and agreed they could be placed for adoption.

  • Suffolk County Council (16 011 822)

    Statement Upheld Adoption 13-Apr-2017

    Summary: the Council was not at fault for the information it shared with Mrs C as a prospective adopter. There were some delays sharing information about a sibling group. An apology, changes to procedures already put in place and payment of £500 is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.