Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (18 009 819)

    Statement Not upheld Fostering 12-Feb-2019

    Summary: Mr B complains about the Council's investigation into safeguarding concerns about a school. The Ombudsman has discontinued his investigation as it is outside of his jurisdiction and is out of time.

  • 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.

  • Somerset County Council (18 011 092)

    Statement Not upheld Fostering 04-Feb-2019

    Summary: Mr S complained the Council had not asked two social workers to apologise to him after making allegations about the standard of care he and his wife provided to a foster child. When he later made complaints about this, Mr S thought the Council should have considered them through the statutory complaints procedure. There is no evidence of fault.

  • Devon County Council (18 005 152)

    Statement Not upheld Fostering 25-Jan-2019

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's decision to remove children from his foster care in 2015. The Council was not at fault. The Council considered the relevant law and government guidance and decided a different carer would better meet the children's needs.

  • North Somerset Council (17 017 147)

    Statement Not upheld Fostering 05-Dec-2018

    Summary: Mrs Y complained that the Council made unreasonable demands on her for looking after children in a foster placement with her daughter. She also complained about the behaviour of an officer towards her at a meeting. The Council was not at fault in relation to the childcare support plan. There is not enough evidence to say the Council was at fault concerning the officer's behaviour.

  • North Somerset Council (17 018 809)

    Statement Upheld Fostering 05-Dec-2018

    Summary: Ms X complained about lack of support, bullying behaviour and delay during the Council's investigation into her standards of care as a foster carer. The Council has already recognised some delay. the Council has agreed to apologise for further delay found. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the other areas of the complaint.

  • Essex County Council (17 006 164)

    Statement Upheld Fostering 22-Nov-2018

    Summary: Mr A complains about the Council's investigation of his complaint under stage two of the statutory children's complaint procedure. Mr A says there were flaws in the investigation. Mr A also complains about flaws in the Council's initial section 47 investigation into the allegations. The Council is at fault for not allowing Mr A to take his complaint to stage three of the statutory procedure. The Ombudsman has recommended the Council arrange a review panel to look at Mr A's complaint.

  • London Borough of Haringey (17 007 648)

    Statement Upheld Fostering 29-Oct-2018

    Summary: The Council failed to follow the correct statutory procedures when it removed four foster children from the complainant's care. This caused her avoidable distress. The Council has agreed to make a payment to the complainant for her injustice and it will remind social work managers of the importance of following the statutory framework for removing children from a foster carer and of the importance of keeping proper records of their decision making.

  • Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (18 001 349)

    Statement Not upheld Fostering 25-Oct-2018

    Summary: The Ombudsman has found no fault in the Council's decision not to place any further children alongside the child Miss X and Mr Y currently foster. There is also no fault in the Council's decision not to pay a solo placement fee to the foster carers, because there is no requirement for it to do so.

  • Kingston upon Hull City Council (17 004 897)

    Statement Upheld Fostering 05-Oct-2018

    Summary: The Council failed, over a long period of time, to follow appropriate procedures when supervising foster carers, Mr C and Mr D. Appropriate procedures would have highlighted any concerns sooner and afforded the Council, Mr C and Mr D an opportunity to address them. However, the Independent Review Mechanism has since decided Mr C and Mr D are not suitable to be foster carers.