Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Wolverhampton City 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.