Fostering archive 2017-2018


Archive has 42 results

  • Liverpool City Council (17 003 890)

    Statement Upheld Fostering 26-Mar-2018

    Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to implement some of the remedies recommended by the independent investigator at stage 2 of the Children Act 1989 complaints procedure. It was also at fault for significant delays in investigating Ms B's complaint, and for failing to notify her when it had fully completed its reinvestigation into issues highlighted by the stage 3 panel. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms B and pay her £200 to recognise her injustice.

  • Plymouth City Council (17 014 849)

    Statement Upheld Fostering 21-Mar-2018

    Summary: There is fault in Plymouth City Council's handling of this complaint about its refusal to agree to a request for investigation at stage 2 of the statutory children's complaints procedure. The Council will make arrangements to consider the complaint at stage 2 of this procedure now.

  • Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (17 004 887)

    Statement Upheld Fostering 14-Mar-2018

    Summary: Mr B complains about the way the Council held meetings to consider his actions as an adult who works with children. The Ombudsman has not found fault with the way the meetings were held but there was poor record keeping and the Council failed to consider the protocol for missing children. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B and to place a detailed note of its reasons for upholding the allegation on his file.

  • London Borough of Southwark (16 018 672)

    Statement Upheld Fostering 02-Mar-2018

    Summary: Ms B complained the Council failed to support her and her two foster children appropriately. There is evidence of fault causing injustice both to Ms B and the children. The Council has been asked to make an apology and to provide a financial remedy to Ms B, C and D.

  • North East Lincolnshire Council (17 005 133)

    Statement Upheld Fostering 01-Mar-2018

    Summary: The Council was not at fault for recovering money overpaid to Mr C because of a Council error but it was at fault for doing so in a way which caused hardship and distress.

  • London Borough of Newham (16 013 088)

    Statement Upheld Fostering 28-Feb-2018

    Summary: the Council did not delay providing Ms B advice about travel arrangements for her foster child. The Council delayed dealing with a complaint but did not treat Ms B as an unreasonably persistent complainant. An apology for the delayed complaint response is satisfactory remedy for the time and trouble Ms B had to go to pursuing her complaint.

  • Suffolk County Council (17 016 521)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Fostering 23-Feb-2018

    Summary: The Ombudsman cannot consider this complaint about the Council's opposition to the complainant's expressed wish to adopt a child who he fostered. This is because the Council's actions were considered in court, where the decision not to allow the adoption was taken.

  • Stoke-on-Trent City Council (16 013 821)

    Statement Upheld Fostering 19-Feb-2018

    Summary: the Council's failure to record the reasons for its decision not to pay Ms M Special Guardianship Order Allowance is fault. There is no fault in the decision itself. The Council carried out a financial assessment and complied with its policy and relevant Regulations. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions taken without fault.

  • Central Bedfordshire Council (16 015 680)

    Statement Upheld Fostering 13-Feb-2018

    Summary: The Council acted with fault when managing the transfer of a foster child between foster parents and in its response to a proposal to adopt the child.

  • Cumbria County Council (17 004 456)

    Statement Not upheld Fostering 02-Feb-2018

    Summary: The Council was not at fault in the way it dealt with an assessment of Mr and Mrs X as foster carers and recommended their deregistration.