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.

Fostering archive 2018-2019


Archive has 35 results

  • Norfolk County Council (18 009 614)

    Statement Upheld Fostering 25-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain the Council failed to support to them as foster carers and ended the placement without notice, causing them financial loss. The Ombudsman finds the Council failed to provide adequate support and did not properly document its decision making. The Ombudsman recommends the Council provides an apology, pays an amount for distress and takes steps to ensure staff are aware of the Council's legal obligations.

  • North Yorkshire County Council (18 011 377)

    Statement Upheld Fostering 17-Mar-2019

    Summary: Ms B is a foster carer. She complains about the Council's failure to provide child C with advanced status earlier. The Council has largely remedied the fault by agreeing to pay Ms B the fees which she would have been paid, but it should apologise to Ms B and pay her £200 to acknowledge the distress she suffered.

  • North Yorkshire County Council (18 016 426)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Fostering 12-Mar-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Ms X's complaint about the level of foster care payments the Council paid her. The events are from three years ago and she has not provided compelling enough reasons why it has taken her so long to complain.

  • Northumberland County Council (18 008 437)

    Statement Upheld Fostering 11-Mar-2019

    Summary: There is no evidence of unreasonable delay by the Council in progressing Ms X's application to become a foster carer. The Council's application form lacked clarity about how many referees Ms X needed to provide but the Council has addressed this by introducing a new form. The Council delayed in dealing with Ms X's complaint which caused frustration and avoidable time and trouble to her which the Council has agreed to apologise for.

  • Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (18 009 888)

    Statement Upheld Fostering 06-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mr and Mrs F complain about the Council's decision to move their foster child, J, to new carers in February 2016. The Ombudsman has found no fault in the decision to end the placement. There was fault causing injustice by the Council not telling Mr and Mrs F the outcome of two safeguarding investigations; not arranging for them to say goodbye to J; and not sending a letter explaining the decision to move J. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Mr and Mrs F to acknowledge the distress caused.

  • Cumbria County Council (18 015 601)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Fostering 21-Feb-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms A's complaint that the Council was at fault in how it assessed her application to become a foster carer. This is because it is unlikely investigation would achieve anything significant for Ms A, or lead to a different outcome.

  • Leicestershire County Council (18 014 805)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Fostering 15-Feb-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X's complaint about the Council's information sharing during a foster carer's application process. The Information Commissioner is considering the same issue.

  • Manchester City Council (18 003 403)

    Statement Upheld Fostering 12-Feb-2019

    Summary: Mr B complains about the Council's response to his concerns about a school and its decision to terminate a foster placement. The Ombudsman has not investigated the complaint relating to the school as this is outside of his jurisdiction. The Ombudsman agrees with the Council's investigation into the other complaints. The investigation said that there was no fault in the Council's actions except that the Council should have informed the independent reviewing officer earlier and should have held a review meeting before deciding to change the children's placement. The Council has apologised for this and this is an appropriate remedy.

  • Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (18 009 819)

    Statement Not upheld Fostering 12-Feb-2019

    Summary: Mr B complains about the Council's investigation into safeguarding concerns about a school. The Ombudsman has discontinued his investigation as it is outside of his jurisdiction and is out of time.

  • Somerset County Council (18 011 092)

    Statement Not upheld Fostering 04-Feb-2019

    Summary: Mr S complained the Council had not asked two social workers to apologise to him after making allegations about the standard of care he and his wife provided to a foster child. When he later made complaints about this, Mr S thought the Council should have considered them through the statutory complaints procedure. There is no evidence of fault.