Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Leicestershire County Council (23 003 705)

    Statement Upheld Fostering 26-Feb-2024

    Summary: There was no fault in the Council’s decision-making in relation to allegations against Mr and Mrs X. The Council considered the information it had and there is no obvious flaw in the way it decided. Additionally, there was no fault the Council decided not to review its earlier finding on Mr X, after it was aware of flaws in the initial investigation by a fostering agency. However, there was fault in how it communicated its decision it had overturned its earlier findings about Mrs X. That fault caused Mrs X an injustice and the Council have agreed to my recommendation to remedy Mrs X’s injustice.

  • Middlesbrough Borough Council (23 015 728)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Fostering 18-Feb-2024

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions while Mr X was a foster carer. This is because the complaint is not separable from matters which could have been considered under the Independent Review Mechanism, which was better placed than the Ombudsman to do so.

  • Liverpool City Council (23 003 382)

    Statement Upheld Fostering 23-Jan-2024

    Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about how the Council treated them as foster carers. There were delays in the statutory complaints process and the Council failed to properly remedy the injustice caused by the fault it accepted. The Council agreed to fully apologise to Mr and Mrs X, pay them a financial remedy and work to restore their fostering authorisation.

  • City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (23 013 392)

    Statement Upheld Fostering 22-Jan-2024

    Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about children services’ actions. The Council has now agreed to follow the Children Act statutory complaints’ procedure.

  • Peterborough City Council (23 003 640)

    Statement Upheld Fostering 15-Jan-2024

    Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council considered her complaint about its change in policy for adoption allowance and special guardianship allowance through the children’s statutory complaint procedure. The Council was at fault for delays in the statutory children’s complaints process. It was also at fault for failing to complete some of the recommendations made during the statutory complaints process. The Council agreed to write to Mrs X, apologise, and pay her £150 in recognition of the injustice caused by the faults.

  • City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (23 001 178)

    Statement Upheld Fostering 07-Dec-2023

    Summary: Mrs X, who was a foster carer, complained about the Council’s failure to properly investigate her complaint about inaccurate statements made by a social worker. We have found the Council to be at fault because it failed to carry out a specific enquiry and failed to amend inaccurate records in response to her complaint. To remedy the injustice to Mrs X, the Council has agreed to apologise and correct the relevant records. We did not find fault with the Council’s decision to make a safeguarding referral to the private fostering agency.

  • Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (23 011 901)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Fostering 05-Dec-2023

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not finding a larger property for Mr X and his family after they gained a special guardianship order for a grandchild. We cannot investigate matters that were before a court, and investigation of the Council’s actions since the order would be unlikely to lead to the outcome Mr X is seeking.

  • Staffordshire County Council (23 006 161)

    Statement Not upheld Fostering 13-Nov-2023

    Summary: There was no fault the Council decided not to accept an independent panel’s recommendation about a remedy for Mr and Mrs X’s injustice. The Council considered the matter after a three-stage Children Act 1989 complaints procedure and it took a decision it was able to take. There is no obvious flaw or unreasonableness in its decision, and we therefore cannot criticise it.

  • Bedford Borough Council (23 011 158)

    Statement Upheld Fostering 09-Nov-2023

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about failings by the Council when after a foster child returned to the care of Mr X and his wife. Investigation by us would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome as the Council has already offered a suitable remedy for two points of complaint and we could not reach a robust view of a third point by investigation.

  • Nottinghamshire County Council (22 017 217)

    Statement Not upheld Fostering 23-Oct-2023

    Summary: Ms X complained the Council placed a foster child, Child Y with her without providing relevant information about Child Y’s needs and unreasonably removed Child Y from her care without notice. The Council was not at fault.

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