Friends and family carers


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • 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.

  • London Borough of Hillingdon (17 019 173)

    Statement Upheld Friends and family carers 08-Feb-2019

    Summary: The complainant was concerned about the Council's support package to help her care for her two grandchildren, under her Special Guardianship Order. There has been some delay by the Council in reviewing the support but this has been caused, in part, by the continued uncertainty about whether the complainant would remain living in the area of another council. The complainant has now decided to stay put, so the Council has agreed, as a way of resolving this complaint, to reassess the complainant's support package and to report back to the Ombudsman, within two months, about what additional services it will provide.

  • Cornwall Council (18 011 857)

    Statement Upheld Friends and family carers 01-Feb-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about the Council's decision to reduce her Special Guardianship Allowance. This is because the Council has provided the remedy Mrs X was seeking and it is unlikely further investigation by the Ombudsman would achieve a different outcome.

  • London Borough of Bromley (18 007 347)

    Statement Upheld Friends and family carers 21-Jan-2019

    Summary: Mr G complains the Council refused his request for Special Guardianship Order Allowance. The Council said he was not entitled to financial support because he is a private applicant. The Council was wrong. The Council has agreed to consider his request properly.

;