Oxfordshire County Council (21 007 767)
Statement Upheld Friends and family carers 10-Apr-2022
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide advice and support when she cared for her brother, Z, for fifteen weeks because he was not able to stay at home. The Council was at fault for not clarifying the basis on which Z was staying with her, delay in making a referral to the council where Ms X lives and failing to provide appropriate support. It should apologise, make a payment to reflect the avoidable stress caused and make changes to its processes to prevent this happening again in the future.
Plymouth City Council (21 017 032)
Statement Upheld Friends and family carers 05-Apr-2022
Summary: The Council is at fault for delaying consideration of this complaint under the children's statutory complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to make a payment to the complainant for the time and trouble its delay has caused.
Lancashire County Council (21 006 175)
Statement Not upheld Friends and family carers 31-Mar-2022
Summary: Ms X complained the Council has refused to provide her with financial support after she started caring for her grandchildren, E and F, when their mother went into a rehabilitation centre. The Council was not at fault because the arrangement for E and F to live with Ms X was a private family arrangement. F then lived with Ms X on a permanent basis under a child arrangement order following court proceedings which Ms X began independently from the Council.
Milton Keynes Council (21 003 690)
Statement Not upheld Friends and family carers 29-Mar-2022
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs C's complaint about the Council's failure to provide adequate support for her adopted son. This is because the Council has agreed to carry out an investigation under the statutory complaints procedure for children's services.
Durham County Council (21 007 905)
Statement Not upheld Friends and family carers 10-Mar-2022
Summary: Ms X cares for a child under a Child Arrangement Order. She complains about the Council's decision to end her funding and says the Council fettered its discretion to continue providing the funding. Ms X says this has caused her distress. We do not find fault with the Council as there is no evidence it fettered its discretion.
Plymouth City Council (20 012 915)
Statement Upheld Friends and family carers 04-Mar-2022
Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to provide him with sufficient information regarding how the Special Guardianship allowance would be calculated and did not explain that it would be means tested. Mr X also complained the Council did not respond to his queries regarding the calculation of the allowance. The Council's failure to provide clear and consistent information regarding the way in which the special guardianship allowance is calculated and how means testing would affect Mr and Mrs X amounts to fault. This fault has caused Mr and Mrs X an injustice.
Kent County Council (21 004 214)
Statement Upheld Friends and family carers 02-Mar-2022
Summary: Mr F complains the Council failed to provide proper support after he agreed to be a supported homes host for a looked after child. The Council has accepted there was fault. It has agreed to make a payment to Mr F to remedy the injustice caused.
Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (21 004 875)
Statement Not upheld Friends and family carers 17-Feb-2022
Summary: Ms X complained about the Council's involvement with her son, Mr Y's, family. There was no fault in how the Council considered and incorporated Mr Y's views in its assessment of his children's needs or investigated his safeguarding concerns. The assessments were not biased against Mr Y.
Durham County Council (21 006 764)
Statement Not upheld Friends and family carers 14-Feb-2022
Summary: there is no fault in the Council's decision to end Ms G's Special Guardianship Order allowance. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions taken without fault.
Kingston Upon Hull City Council (20 005 093)
Statement Upheld Friends and family carers 08-Feb-2022
Summary: Mr and Mrs K complain the Council did not treat their nephew as a looked after child, after its social worker asked them to accommodate him. That meant they did not receive a fostering allowance. The Ombudsman upholds the complaint, as we find fault with the Council's communications and record keeping. We cannot say the Council should have treated Mr and Mrs K's nephew as a looked after child. But the Council has agreed to our recommendation of a remedy for the uncertainty caused by the faults.