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


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • London Borough of Hounslow (20 010 933)

    Statement Upheld Fostering 26-Apr-2022

    Summary: Ms X complained that the Council did not act on safeguarding concerns she raised, about a lack of support for her as a foster carer, and about the way the Council handled her complaint. Ms X said this caused frustration and concern. Largely we do not find the Council at fault. However, we find the Council at fault for failing to log Ms X's complaint. As recommended by the Ombudsman, the Council has apologised to Ms X for the injustice caused by this failure.

  • Royal Borough of Greenwich (21 015 281)

    Statement Upheld Fostering 19-Apr-2022

    Summary: The Council is at fault for delaying paying savings to two children previously in care. The Council has agreed to make payments to the complainant for the time and trouble its delays have caused and to the children for the frustration caused.

  • North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (21 003 189)

    Statement Upheld Fostering 29-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly advise him about the care options or financial support available when it placed his nephew with him. Mr X complained he did not receive the correct allowances or fostering fees which caused him financial difficulties. The Council's failure to provide Mr X with sufficient information to enable him to make an informed decision regarding the SGO and the support he would receive amounts to fault. This fault has caused Mr X a significant injustice.

  • Hertfordshire County Council (21 003 937)

    Statement Upheld Fostering 23-Mar-2022

    Summary: The complainants, foster carers, complained that the Council failed to understand their concerns about Covid-19 when insisting that they send the foster children to school prior to the second lockdown in December 2020. The complainants also considered the Council raised unfounded allegations about them as part of its complaint investigation. We find fault in some aspects of the Council's approach and the Council has agreed a way to remedy the injustice. We are therefore closing the complaint.

  • East Riding of Yorkshire Council (21 007 095)

    Statement Upheld Fostering 18-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mrs T complained about the Council's handling of an investigation into allegations made against her as a foster carer. The Council failed to properly investigate the allegations and consider Mrs T's complaint about the matter. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs T and pay her £450 to recognise the distress and time and trouble caused to her.

  • Kingston Upon Hull City Council (21 005 838)

    Statement Upheld Fostering 11-Mar-2022

    Summary: The Council was at fault when it unnecessarily delayed and poorly handled its investigation into an allegation that Mr X had abused his foster child. The investigation found the allegation to be unsubstantiated. Mr X said the Council's actions caused him and his family avoidable distress. We have found fault leading to injustice and recommended a financial remedy and service improvements.

  • Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (21 005 508)

    Statement Upheld Fostering 15-Feb-2022

    Summary: Ms D complained the Council failed to follow the correct procedures when it removed a foster child from her care. She says the Council made a flawed decision and it failed to communicate with her and her family. We find the Council was at fault for its lack of transparency and its communication with Ms D. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused.

  • Milton Keynes Council (21 008 019)

    Statement Upheld Fostering 08-Feb-2022

    Summary: Ms X complains that the Council failed to deal properly with her complaint about the way it treated her as a foster carer, and failed to provide an adequate remedy for her. We find there was fault by the Council. It has already recognised some fault but it has not provided an adequate remedy. The Council has agreed to make a payment in addition to the action it has already taken.

  • Lancashire County Council (21 000 747)

    Statement Upheld Fostering 03-Feb-2022

    Summary: The Council was not at fault for how it dealt with Mr B's concerns about a foster child in his care, or for how it conducted his exit interview after he resigned as a foster carer. It was, however, at fault for how it dealt with his complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B.

  • Milton Keynes Council (21 001 503)

    Statement Upheld Fostering 31-Jan-2022

    Summary: Mrs X complains that the Council's investigation into an incident where she did not take a young person to hospital was biased and unfair. The Council is at fault as it failed to make a clear distinction between a concern or allegation when investigating a matter involving Mrs X and in its communication with her. The Council also failed to clearly explain the process of the investigation, failed to ensure Mrs X had timely independent support and wrongly considered the concern or allegation to also be against Mr X. The Council also delayed in dealing with Mrs X's complaint and in making an agreed payment to her. The faults by the Council caused distress to Mr and Mrs X which it will remedy by apologising and making a payment of £500 to them.