Privacy settings

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Looked after children


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Hampshire County Council (21 016 617)

    Statement Upheld Looked after children 06-Apr-2022

    Summary: The Council was at fault in delaying consideration of Miss B's complaint at Stage 2 of the statutory procedure for children's services complaints. The Council has agreed to begin Stage 2 and to offer to make a payment to Miss B.

  • City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (21 017 384)

    Statement Upheld Looked after children 29-Mar-2022

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's decision to put her daughter up for adoption. This is because we cannot investigate complaints about court action or what happened in court. The Council has accepted there were delays in arranging to provide Miss X with updates about her child following adoption. The Council has agreed to pay Miss X £300 to acknowledge the distress this caused her.

  • Surrey County Council (21 006 640)

    Statement Upheld Looked after children 27-Mar-2022

    Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to arrange suitable contact with her children or update her on their progress while they lived with foster carers. The Council was at fault for failing to send Ms X some of the records of her contact sessions with the children. The missed contact records caused Ms X undue distress. We recommend the Council apologise and send her the records. The Council was also at fault for failing to properly facilitate arrangements for a family holiday. It had already taken appropriate steps to remedy that fault. The Council was not at fault in the other matters Ms X complained about.

  • London Borough of Hounslow (21 014 314)

    Statement Upheld Looked after children 06-Mar-2022

    Summary: The Council is at fault for delaying consideration of this complaint at stage one of the children's statutory complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to consider the complaint at stage one of the procedure without further delay.

  • Northumberland County Council (21 004 295)

    Statement Upheld Looked after children 28-Feb-2022

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to carry out a sufficiently independent and robust investigation into his children's statutory complaint. The Council was at fault for failing to investigate Mr X's concerns about some of the care homes he lived in. This caused avoidable Mr X distress. The Council has agreed to apologise.

  • Reading Borough Council (20 007 819)

    Statement Upheld Looked after children 25-Feb-2022

    Summary: Mrs Y's son, Z, is a Looked after Child and accommodated by the Council under a care order. Mrs Y complains the Council has failed to keep her informed about her son, Z's progress at school, provide a clear contact schedule and explain what happened to some of Z's belongings that had gone missing. We find the Council at fault and it delayed in sending a complaint response. We find this caused Mrs Y distress and uncertainty. To remedy this, the Council has agreed to apologise in writing to Mrs Y, make her a payment and make several service improvements.

  • London Borough of Hounslow (21 003 804)

    Statement Upheld Looked after children 11-Feb-2022

    Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council supported him while leaving the Council's care. The Council failed to arrange a personal adviser for Mr X when it should have done and unnecessarily delayed investigating Mr X's complaint. This caused Mr X avoidable uncertainty, frustration, time and trouble for which the Council agree to apologise and pay him a financial remedy. It also agreed to review the training and guidance it provides to its social workers.

  • St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (21 002 189)

    Statement Upheld Looked after children 18-Jan-2022

    Summary: St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council properly took the action it agreed to as a result of its findings when it completed its consideration of Ms B's complaint under the children's statutory complaints procedure. However, it should offer a higher payment to recognise the impact of those faults on Ms B.

  • Devon County Council (21 004 445)

    Statement Upheld Looked after children 13-Jan-2022

    Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to respond to her concerns about the care of her two children, who were in foster care. We found the Council at fault for failing to tell Miss X she could return to the complaints process after concurrent investigations were complete. We recommended the Council provide an apology and payment to Miss X and act to prevent recurrence.

  • Birmingham City Council (20 011 043)

    Statement Upheld Looked after children 10-Jan-2022

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly consider his complaints about historic abuse while in care. We found there was fault. The Council agreed to consider the complaint Mr X raised in 2020 through the statutory children's complaints process and make a payment to Mr X of £200 to recognise his time and trouble in bringing the complaint.