Fostering archive 2019-2020


Archive has 45 results

  • Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (19 000 277)

    Statement Upheld Fostering 23-Jul-2019

    Summary: The Council is at fault in its handling of Ms F’s complaint to the Council on matters related to the care of her niece by its children’s services team. It will take action promptly to consider her complaint now.

  • City of Wolverhampton Council (18 008 927)

    Statement Upheld Fostering 11-Jul-2019

    Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to accept she resigned as a foster carer in October 2016. The Council found the letter on the foster child’s file in 2018 and this confirmed Mrs X only gave notice on the placement and was not her resignation as a foster carer. There is no fault by the Council investigating complaints by the foster child and referring the matter to a fostering review panel. There is fault in the Council’s response to the notice to end the placement and her complaints about the resignation letter.

  • Essex County Council (19 004 968)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Fostering 08-Jul-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a delay in closing a foster care placement. There is no significant injustice caused to Mrs X requiring a remedy.

  • Essex County Council (19 002 188)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Fostering 01-Jul-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about problems with bank accounts held on behalf of children she fostered. The injustice caused to Mrs X is not significant enough to justify an investigation.

  • Kent County Council (18 015 096)

    Statement Upheld Fostering 26-Jun-2019

    Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her and her husband, Mr X suitable training and support while they were foster carers. It then failed to consider the Independent Review Mechanism decision and decided to de-register them as foster carers. The Council was at fault for failing to provide Mr and Mrs X with training and support needed, however, it was not at fault in its decision to de-register them as carers.

  • Isle of Wight Council (18 013 094)

    Statement Upheld Fostering 24-Jun-2019

    Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain about the Council’s decision to remove children they were fostering from their care and to restrict their ability to foster going forward. In particular they complain the social worker involved in their case did not act appropriately. The Ombudsman found there was fault in some of the Council’s approach to dealing with concerns about Mr and Mrs X’s fostering capability. However, only a decision to remove two foster children without notice caused them an injustice which it should remedy. The Council has agreed with our recommendation to apologise and pay a financial remedy for the distress caused to Mr and Mrs X.

  • Stoke-on-Trent City Council (18 017 920)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Fostering 14-Jun-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms A’s complaint about the Council’s actions regarding allegations of abuse it received. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

  • Blackpool Borough Council (18 012 495)

    Statement Upheld Fostering 22-May-2019

    Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council’s support to them as foster carers and that it ignored the Independent Review Mechanism panel’s recommendation to support their continued registration. There was fault in the Council’s support for Mr and Mrs X as foster carers. It has agreed to pay Mr and Mrs X £500 as remedy for injustice caused by this fault. There was no administrative fault in how it made its decision to deregister the couple, having considered the Independent Review Mechanism’s recommendations.

  • Birmingham City Council (18 001 117)

    Statement Upheld Fostering 21-May-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains that the Council is acting unfairly in paying him and his wife a lower fee as family and friends foster carers than it would if they were non-connected foster carers. The Ombudsman finds that the Council is not paying them a lower fee because of their connection to the child, and so it is not at fault. The difference in fees is based on other criteria such as skills, training and the range of placements foster carers are available to take. There was fault in the way the Council described its policy before 2018 and in the information given to Mr X. The Council has agreed to apologise to him and clarify its position.

  • Surrey County Council (18 016 677)

    Statement Upheld Fostering 16-May-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to address his complaints about children’s services, causing distress. The Ombudsman finds the Council failed to follow the statutory children’s complaints process. The Ombudsman recommends the Council provides an apology, payment, progresses Mr X’s complaints in line with the statutory process and reviews it procedures.

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.

Privacy settings