Privacy settings

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Looked after children archive 2016-2017


Archive has 35 results

  • Kent County Council (16 010 292)

    Statement Not upheld Looked after children 30-Mar-2017

    Summary: There is no fault in this complaint about the care the Council is providing to Mr X's son who is in foster care on a full care order.

  • Sunderland City Council (16 011 750)

    Statement Upheld Looked after children 29-Mar-2017

    Summary: The Council was at fault for how it removed the complainant from his foster carers. During this investigation it has apologised and offered a remedy to the complaint which will provide a fair outcome.

  • Sunderland City Council (16 002 492)

    Statement Upheld Looked after children 29-Mar-2017

    Summary: The Council was at fault for not supporting the complainants more when they faced challenges caring for a boy whom they were fostering. When that placement broke down the Council was further at fault in how it conducted a meeting which decided to take the boy's brother into care also. The Council accepts these faults and it has apologised to the complainants. It has now also agreed to provide a further financial remedy which will provide a satisfactory remedy to the complaint.

  • Peterborough City Council (16 008 674)

    Statement Upheld Looked after children 29-Mar-2017

    Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of Y, a young person she fostered, about the Council's refusal to continue funding legal action to recover money he inherited. The Council was not at fault in the way it reached its decision but it did not communicate it properly to the complainants. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment of £100. This is a suitable remedy.

  • Lancashire County Council (16 003 831)

    Statement Upheld Looked after children 28-Mar-2017

    Summary: There is evidence of efforts by the Council to assist the complainant and her great nephew who she has looked after since he was a baby. But, by early 2016, the Council recognised that the nephew's behaviours posed a significant risk. The Ombudsman considers that there was fault by the Council in that it should have arranged a more robust multi agency response to safeguard him and to assist the complainant.

  • London Borough of Haringey (16 005 010)

    Statement Upheld Looked after children 27-Mar-2017

    Summary: The Council had not shown how it weighed in the balance all the necessary factors when refusing the complainant's request for a 'staying put' agreement with his current carers and it delayed in making the decision. The Council has now provided a more detailed explanation and agreed a small payment to the complainant for his avoidable distress caused by its faults.

  • Surrey County Council (16 013 264)

    Statement Upheld Looked after children 27-Mar-2017

    Summary: The Council was at fault for not investigating Mr A's complaint under the statutory complaints procedure for children's social care. It has now agreed to respond to the matters he raised using this process.

  • Birmingham City Council (16 004 272)

    Statement Upheld Looked after children 09-Mar-2017

    Summary: Mr C was unhappy with the way he and his family were treated both before and after his children were placed on a Care Plan. He said his two children, who were returned to his care, had been traumatised by what had happened to them over this time. There was evidence of Council fault causing injustice to E but the injustice to Mr C has already been remedied.

  • Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (16 014 518)

    Statement Not upheld Looked after children 08-Mar-2017

    Summary: The Council followed the correct procedure before deciding on the format of B's Looked after Child Review meeting. It correctly responded to Mr X's complaint about this matter.

  • Northamptonshire County Council (16 016 719)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Looked after children 07-Mar-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A's complaint about services the Council provided to him as a care leaver because it is unlikely he could add to the investigation the Council has carried out.