Friends and family carers


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Royal Borough of Greenwich (18 009 656)

    Statement Upheld Friends and family carers 10-May-2019

    Summary: the Council delayed recognising Miss B's sister's children were looked after children which delayed provision of financial support to the family between January and July 2018. The Council also delayed considering Miss B's complaint at stage two. Those failures put an unreasonable financial burden on the family and created significant stress. A financial payment to three family members and training for officers is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.

  • North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (18 012 806)

    Statement Not upheld Friends and family carers 03-May-2019

    Summary: Miss X complained about the Council's decision not to backdate her Residence Order allowance. Miss X said a Council officer told her she was eligible for a back payment of £22,000 for the period between 2011 and 2015. I cannot say whether the Council officer told Miss X she was eligible for the back payment. However, Residence Order allowances are discretionary, and the Council decided not to backdate the payments. The Council was not at fault.

  • London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (18 003 840)

    Statement Upheld Friends and family carers 18-Apr-2019

    Summary: Ms X complains about the Council's handling of her case while she was a special guardian to a child. She says the Council had not given her information about being a special guardian and had not paid her financial support correctly. The Ombudsman does find fault with the Council for not paying Ms X accurately. However, this has not caused Ms X an injustice because the Council has overpaid Ms X overall. The Ombudsman does not fault for the Council's other actions.

  • Liverpool City Council (17 020 257)

    Statement Upheld Friends and family carers 29-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council failed to approve her and her husband as foster carers in accordance with a care order made in 2006 and as a result failed to offer them adequate support both emotional and practical. The Council has agreed to pay Mrs B £1000 in addition to £7000 previously offered, to provide an explanation as to why they were never approved as foster carers, allow them an opportunity to check the information held on the case records is correct and ensure it takes action to formalise any other long-term unregulated placements.

  • Nottinghamshire County Council (18 009 200)

    Statement Upheld Friends and family carers 29-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mr and Mrs G complain the Council has not satisfactorily remedied a complaint we investigated in 2018 which concerned its responsibilities to Mrs G as a special guardian for her grandson. We have upheld this complaint also, finding fault by the Council in its assessment of a special guardianship allowance paid to Mrs G. We consider this has caused Mrs G further injustice as distress. The Council has agreed action to remedy this injustice including undertaking a further reassessment of the allowance it pays to Mrs G.

  • Gloucestershire County Council (18 013 193)

    Statement Upheld Friends and family carers 04-Mar-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman will stop the investigation into the Council's poor communication with Mrs Y about a Special Guardianship Order following her son's death. This is because the Council has now mediated an agreement for contact with her grandchild and agreed to meet with her. Mrs Y accepts this as a suitable remedy.

  • Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (18 007 945)

    Statement Upheld Friends and family carers 26-Feb-2019

    Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to give her appropriate advice so she and her husband could make an informed decision about becoming their grandchildren's carers. The Council failed to recognise its duty to accommodate the children. It failed to provide appropriate advice and information to enable Mrs X to make an informed choice about her options. It failed to offer appropriate support to Mrs X as a family and friends foster carer or to the children as looked after children. To remedy injustice to Mrs X the Council has agreed to calculate and pay her what she would have received as a family and friends foster carer from September 2015 until December 2015. It has agreed to calculate and pay Mrs X Child Arrangement Order allowance backdated to December 2015 on a par with what she would have then received had she become a special guardian. It has agreed to pay her legal costs if she wants to continue her application to now become a special guardian. It has agreed to pay Mrs X £500 to remedy additional injustice caused to the family by these failings. It has agreed to review its Child Arrangement Order allowance policy to comply with statutory guidance by explaining eligibility, means testing and the application process.

  • Essex County Council (17 019 862)

    Statement Upheld Friends and family carers 21-Feb-2019

    Summary: Mr and Mrs B complain the Council placed their two grandchildren with them but did not provide them with appropriate financial support. They were left without financial support for the boys' care for a long period. The Ombudsman finds the Council was at fault because it failed to provide any clarity for Mr and Mrs B about what it considered their role was in terms of the boys' care, and how the cost of that care should be met.

  • Wolverhampton City Council (18 010 977)

    Statement Upheld Friends and family carers 11-Feb-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council has not remedied failings identified through the statutory children's complaints procedure, causing him financial loss and stress. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault. We recommend the Council takes action; pays Mr X the amount he should have received as a family and friends foster carer and; pays Mr X £900 for stress, time and trouble.

  • Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (18 005 719)

    Statement Upheld Friends and family carers 08-Feb-2019

    Summary: The Council was not at fault for reducing Ms B's special guardianship allowance. It complied with Regulations by having regard to a comparable fostering allowance, but by not duplicating other benefits Ms B receives. The Council was, however, at fault for failing to properly respond to Ms B's request for further information for three months in 2018. It has already apologised for the delay, so does not need to take further action.