Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Middlesbrough Borough Council (19 011 462)

    Statement Not upheld Other 24-Mar-2020

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not comply with a court order about contact with his son, care planning meetings and expert recommendations. I have discontinued my investigation because the matter is due to go back before the Court. Mr X's complaint can be re-opened if he remains unhappy once the outcome is known.

  • Suffolk County Council (19 007 878)

    Statement Upheld Other 18-Mar-2020

    Summary: The complainant is concerned about the Council's child protection actions in respect of her child. The Council has considered the complaint under the Children Act 1989 statutory complaint process. The Council has upheld some complaints and offered appropriate apologies and procedural changes. The Ombudsman does not consider that there are any outstanding complaints for him to consider. But he is concerned about the length of time taken to deal with the complaint. However, the Council has agreed the recommended action to remedy the avoidable distress caused to the complainant by this delay.

  • Devon County Council (19 005 952)

    Statement Upheld Other 09-Mar-2020

    Summary: Miss B complains that the Council has not properly dealt with child protection proceedings for her family because it has not implemented recommendations from her complaint and has not provided sufficient support. The Council was at fault because it did not provide sufficient support in the earlier stages of her case. The Council has apologised to Miss B, re-engaged with her family and has re-considered the necessary level of support for the family. The Council has agreed to pay Miss B £1000 in respect of the distress she and her family have suffered and pay Miss B £500 in respect of the risk of harm they were exposed to by the failure of services.

  • Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (19 004 620)

    Statement Upheld Other 05-Mar-2020

    Summary: Mr X and Miss Z complain about failings in the way the Council has supported their son, Y, and delays in the complaint process. Shortcomings in the Council's service to Y and Mr X and Miss Z, and delays in the complaint process amount to fault. This fault has caused Mr X and Miss Z an injustice.

  • Bracknell Forest Council (19 010 117)

    Statement Upheld Other 04-Mar-2020

    Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council's handling of her complaints under the statutory children's complaints process. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault. He recommends the Council makes a payment and takes action to consider Mrs X's further complaints in line with the statutory guidance.

  • Staffordshire County Council (19 010 443)

    Statement Not upheld Other 26-Feb-2020

    Summary: Mrs B complains about the actions of the Council when she presented as to it as homeless when she was 16 years old. The complaint has not been through the three stages of the statutory procedure for children's services complaints, and in the circumstances of this case early referral to the Ombudsman is not appropriate. The Council agreed to give Mrs B the opportunity to complete the statutory procedure. The Ombudsman therefore discontinued his consideration of this complaint.

  • London Borough of Croydon (17 002 640)

    Statement Upheld Other 26-Feb-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsmen find a series of failings in the care of a vulnerable young woman over several years. Social care and health care organisations had clear responsibilities to provide her with suitable joined up care in a timely manner but this did not always happen. This meant there were lost opportunities for more appropriate care, sooner. It has left uncertainty about how the woman's life would have been different now had the fault not occurred. The relevant organisations have agreed to make apologies, financial payments and actions to learn lessons from the case.

  • Cambridgeshire County Council (19 001 866)

    Statement Upheld Other 14-Feb-2020

    Summary: Mr B says the Council wrongly placed his son on a child protection plan when it accepts it failed to follow the right process and completed a flawed single assessment. There were some errors in the single assessment which did not affect the overall outcome. The Council failed to consider sharing a redacted version of the single assessment with Mr B before the initial child protection conference. Those errors have undermined Mr B's confidence in the process. An apology and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.

  • Wiltshire Council (19 000 322)

    Statement Upheld Other 05-Feb-2020

    Summary: Mrs X complains about the procedure carried out by the Council's Designated Officer for Allegations. She says this led to an incorrect finding being made against her which has had devastating consequences for her both personally and professionally. The Ombudsman has found fault because the procedure did not allow for a proper consideration of her version of events. There was also fault with the complaint procedure which was too restrictive in its remit and its failure to make a referral to the Disclosure and Barring Service. To remedy this, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mrs X and investigate her complaint again.

  • Lancashire County Council (19 001 383)

    Statement Upheld Other 24-Jan-2020

    Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain about the adequacy of the Council's handling of their complaint under the statutory children's complaints' procedure. Mr and Mrs X are unhappy with the stage 2 investigation and said the Council have refused to escalate the complaint to a stage 3 review panel. The Council was it fault. Its decision not to escalate the complaint to a stage 3 review panel was not in line with the statutory guidance. The Council agreed to hold a stage 3 panel within one month of the final decision and pay Mr and Mrs X a total of £350 to recognise the delays, distress, frustration and time and trouble caused by its faults.