Fostering


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Northamptonshire County Council (18 010 937)

    Statement Upheld Fostering 08-May-2019

    Summary: Mrs B complained the Council failed to offer an appropriate remedy when it upheld the majority of complaints about how it had dealt with her as a foster carer. It is clear the failures in this case caused Mrs B and her husband significant distress and led to them having to go to time and trouble to pursue their complaint. An increased financial remedy and apology is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.

  • Milton Keynes Council (18 013 469)

    Statement Upheld Fostering 02-May-2019

    Summary: Mr and Mrs B complain about the way the Council considered their complaints about allegations made against them as foster carers. They say that as a result they have not been able to continue fostering and have not had a chance to have their complaints properly considered. There was fault by the Council in not investigating Mr and Mrs B's complaints. The Council's offer to commission an independent investigation is a satisfactory resolution. It should be completed within 13 weeks.

  • Thurrock Council (18 010 064)

    Statement Upheld Fostering 16-Apr-2019

    Summary: Mr and Mrs T complained the Council removed two children they were fostering from their care primarily because of their ages. This was not found to be the case. The Council took six months from when the children were removed to collect their belongings from Mr and Mrs T. This is fault but it did not cause Mr and Mrs T injustice.

  • London Borough of Havering (18 004 316)

    Statement Upheld Fostering 05-Apr-2019

    Summary: Mrs B complained that Council Y failed to pay her the correct rate of fostering allowance for Child C when she transferred as a foster carer to a different authority. Council Y accepts it has no records as to why it paid a lower rate for this child and has offered a remedy of £7000. I agree there was fault by Council Y and consider it should pay Mrs B £7000.

  • London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (18 016 261)

    Statement Not upheld Fostering 05-Apr-2019

    Summary: Mrs B complained that Council Y failed to pay her the correct rate of fostering allowance for Child C when she transferred as a foster carer to a different authority, Council Z. Council Y accepts it has no records as to why it paid a lower rate for this child and has offered a remedy. I agree there was fault by Council Y and consider its remedy is a reasonable way of putting matters right. I can find no fault in the actions of Council Z.

  • 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.

  • Northumberland 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.

  • 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.