Friends and family carers archive 2015-2016


Archive has 20 results

  • London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (15 016 847)

    Statement Not upheld Friends and family carers 24-Mar-2016

    Summary: The Council acted without fault in refusing to pay a residence allowance to Mrs X in respect of her two nieces when they came to live with her in 2013. This is because the children were living in another area at the time, so the Council could not have placed them.

  • Portsmouth City Council (15 001 138)

    Statement Upheld Friends and family carers 18-Mar-2016

    Summary: The Council failed to accept its duty to care for two young brothers or to recognise their uncle as being a Friends and Family Foster Carer. This meant their uncle did not receive payments or support while they were in his care and the boys suffered distress and upheaval through having to move several times to different carers.

  • East Riding of Yorkshire Council (15 002 192)

    Statement Upheld Friends and family carers 29-Feb-2016

    Summary: The Council's final response to a complaint about special guardianship allowance and related matters identified the full extent of fault and suitably remedied fault. There is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice in the way the Council applied the statutory complaints procedure.

  • London Borough of Hounslow (15 010 339)

    Statement Not upheld Friends and family carers 23-Feb-2016

    Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council decided what amount of Residence Order Allowance to pay Ms X.

  • Hertfordshire County Council (15 011 645)

    Statement Not upheld Friends and family carers 08-Feb-2016

    Summary: Mr & Mrs G are family and friends foster carers for three of their grandchildren. There was no fault in the way the Council decided to pay Mr & Mrs G and their paid home help to care for the grandchildren while Mr & Mrs G took respite from the children. The Council was aware of their views when it decided to stick to its policy on how it pays family and friends foster carers during respite.

  • Stoke-on-Trent City Council (15 015 457)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Friends and family carers 19-Jan-2016

    Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about the support of the Council's social services for the complainant and her grandchildren. This is because the matter has been considered by a court and is out of the Ombudsman's jurisdiction.

  • Blackpool Borough Council (15 000 828)

    Statement Not upheld Friends and family carers 11-Jan-2016

    Summary: The Ombudsman found no fault on Mr and Mrs D's complaint that the Council failed to provide them with financial support or advice when their 2 grandchildren moved to stay with them. The Council was not required to provide them with financial support.

  • Oxfordshire County Council (15 001 126)

    Statement Upheld Friends and family carers 08-Jan-2016

    Summary: The Council failed to properly assess Mrs X's ability to care for Y, and Y's needs as a child in need when she agreed to care for Y, her sister's son, in 2004. The arrangement relieved the Council from having to seek parental responsibility for Y, which it was preparing to do. This caused Mrs X financial hardship at the time.

  • Durham County Council (15 013 540)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Friends and family carers 22-Dec-2015

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the content of a court report. The Ombudsman cannot investigate what happens in court including the consideration of the report and the child's living arrangements.

  • Wakefield City Council (14 014 136)

    Statement Upheld Friends and family carers 18-Dec-2015

    Summary: When the Council involved itself in the arrangements for Mr X's grandson, Y, to live with him in November 2010, the Council failed to make clear to Mr X it believed it was a private arrangement. As the child's mother had abandoned Y the Council was under a duty to accommodate him. It could not 'sidestep' that duty without a full and proper explanation to Mr X. The Council has accepted our recommendation that it should reimburse Mr X as if he had been his Y's family and friends foster carer from November 2010 to February 2012. The Council also failed to properly safeguard Y who was allegedly both a victim and perpetrator of sexual abuse. It failed to carry out the actions required by his Child Protection Plan before the case was transferred to another council in February 2011. The Council has accepted our recommendation to pay Y £1,000 for the disadvantage caused to him and £500 to Mr X for the distress caused by the Council's faults. The Council says it will learn lessons from the complaint.

;