Fostering archive 2014-2015

Archive has 25 results

  • Surrey County Council (14 011 092)

    Statement Not upheld Fostering 30-Mar-2015

    Summary: The Ombudsman has closed this complaint alleging fault by the Council because it failed to pay the complainants the fostering rate they had agreed. The complaint was independently investigated through the statutory complaints procedure. The Ombudsman did not find fault with the independent investigation of the complaint or its outcome.

  • Luton Borough Council (14 011 949)

    Statement Not upheld Fostering 25-Mar-2015

    Summary: the Council was not at fault for failing to pay Ms B a fostering allowance.

  • Southampton City Council (13 019 144)

    Statement Upheld Fostering 25-Mar-2015

    Summary: There were some failings in the way the Council deal with foster carers after a safeguarding incident which led to their de-registration as foster carers. It apologised for the inadequate terms of reference given to the investigating social worker; the failure to provide support to the complainant's daughter during the process and for the length of time the de-registration took. The Council has taken action to improve practice.

  • North Somerset Council (14 012 521)

    Statement Not upheld Fostering 19-Mar-2015

    Summary: Ms X and Mr Y complained about the way the Council dealt with foster carers looking after their son. The carers are no longer looking after him. The Ombudsman will not investigate further as it is unlikely to produce any useful outcome.

  • Lancashire County Council (14 005 125)

    Statement Upheld Fostering 25-Feb-2015

    Summary: There were delays in assessing Mr and Mrs X's application to adopt two sisters they were fostering. There was also fault in the way Mr X's request for adoption allowances to be paid for the girls was considered, and so the decision was flawed. It also took too long for the Council to give him its explanation for its decision. I cannot say the outcome (about adoption or allowances) would have been different without the fault. But the fault has caused doubt about this for Mr X, caused him time and trouble in pursuing the matter, and caused avoidable anxiety to him, Mrs X and the girls. This was injustice. I uphold this complaint.

  • Staffordshire County Council (13 017 883)

    Statement Upheld Fostering 06-Feb-2015

    Summary: The Council has not completed the statutory child social care complaints procedure and there are no grounds for an early referral to the Ombudsman.

  • Leeds City Council (14 007 830)

    Statement Upheld Fostering 04-Feb-2015

    Summary: Mrs X complained that when the Council accepted in 2013 it had failed to treat her as a Level 4 foster carer it failed to backdate her payments to 2007. There is fault in the Council's reasoning on why it only backdated her payments to 2012 and not earlier. The Council has accepted the Ombudsman's recommendation to retake its decision.

  • Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (13 019 077)

    Statement Not upheld Fostering 28-Jan-2015

    Summary: There is no evidence of fault in the Council's decision not to move Y from his foster care placement with Mr and Mrs X sooner than it did and there is evidence the Council provided support to Mr and Mrs X in managing Y's behaviour. The Council has agreed to pay for the damage to a door which Mr X says was caused by Y. This is a reasonable settlement and the Ombudsman cannot achieve any more for Mr X.

  • Derby City Council (14 002 532)

    Statement Not upheld Fostering 26-Jan-2015

    Summary: There was no fault by the Council causing injustice to the complainant (Mrs A).

  • London Borough of Southwark (14 010 327)

    Statement Not upheld Fostering 22-Jan-2015

    Summary: Mr X complained that Council officers made unfounded and malicious allegations against him as a foster carer, and that the Council failed to investigate his complaint about this properly. Further investigation is unlikely to achieve any more useful outcome for the complainant than has been achieved from the Council's investigation so far. The Ombudsman has therefore discontinued her investigation.