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:

  • London Borough of Croydon (21 012 828)

    Statement Upheld Looked after children 27-Jun-2022

    Summary: Mrs X and her husband complained the Council did not properly pay them for missed respite service when they looked after a child as foster carers. The Council was at fault as it failed to provide a respite service to Mrs X and her husband whilst they cared for the child. However, the Council offered to pay Mrs X and her husband £25,200 for the lack of respite service. It also offered to pay them £500 for the time and trouble they went through to complain to the Council. I consider this is an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by the fault.

  • London Borough of Wandsworth (20 008 830)

    Statement Not upheld Looked after children 19-Jun-2022

    Summary: We have ended our investigation into Ms X's complaint about the Council's actions in relation to historical abuse she suffered and how it responded to her data subject access request. This is because an investigation would not achieve anything more. In addition, Ms X can contact the Information Commissioner's Office about her data subject access request as it is a better suited body to consider her complaint.

  • London Borough of Haringey (21 012 875)

    Statement Upheld Looked after children 25-May-2022

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to protect him from abuse and neglect as a child whilst he was in the Council's care. The Council refused to investigate his complaint, saying the issues were out of time. The Council was at fault as it should have investigated his complaint. Since bringing the complaint to us, the Council has reviewed its decision and decided to open an historic child protection investigation into his complaint. This is an appropriate action. The Council should also make service improvements to help prevent a reoccurrence of the identified fault.

  • Birmingham City Council (21 015 830)

    Statement Upheld Looked after children 25-May-2022

    Summary: Mr Y complains the Council failed to consider a complaint about historic issues he experienced whilst he was a child in care. We find the Council did not properly consider the circumstances around Mr Y's complaint before deciding it was too old to investigate. The Council will consider Mr Y's complaint through the statutory children's complaints procedure, pay £100 to Mr Y for his time and trouble and issue a reminder to all staff who handle children's service complaints.

  • London Borough of Brent (21 007 297)

    Statement Not upheld Looked after children 15-May-2022

    Summary: There was no significant fault in how the Council investigated a complaint under the statutory children's complaints procedure. We therefore have no grounds to question or reinvestigate its findings, and completed our investigation on this basis.

  • London Borough of Havering (21 006 949)

    Statement Upheld Looked after children 08-May-2022

    Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council handled her granddaughter's behavioural and educational needs, that the Council failed to support her as a special guardian, and delayed responding to her complaint. Mrs X said the lack of support caused unnecessary distress, stress, and made her ill. She also said her granddaughter lost out on educational support. Largely we do not find the Council at fault. However, we find the Council at fault for delays handling Mrs X's complaint. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Mrs X to reflect the injustice caused.

  • London Borough of Tower Hamlets (20 011 417)

    Statement Upheld Looked after children 05-May-2022

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to respond to his concerns about the care of his two children, who were in foster care. The Council was at fault for failing to follow its safeguarding procedures and for failing to tell Mr X the outcome of its investigation. This has caused Mr X avoidable uncertainty and put him to avoidable time and trouble. We are satisfied with the Council's proposed remedy. The Council agreed to apologise and make a personal remedy payment to Mr X and act to prevent recurrence.

  • Suffolk County Council (21 006 296)

    Statement Upheld Looked after children 21-Apr-2022

    Summary: Mr and Mrs C said the Council failed to respond adequately to their enquiries about the care of their granddaughter, X. The Council was at fault for a failure to communicate adequately during early 2021. This fault caused injustice to Mr and Mrs C who were distressed by these failures. The Council has already apologised and no further remedy is required.

  • 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.