Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (16 015 694)

    Statement Upheld Adoption 20-Apr-2017

    Summary: The Council carried out a thorough and fair Stage 2 investigation but took too long. It was also at fault when it refused to hold a Stage 3 review and said the complaint should be referred to the Ombudsman instead. The Council has agreed to review its procedures relating to Stage 2 timescales and when it can make early referrals to the Ombudsman.

  • London Borough of Croydon (16 019 337)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Adoption 18-Apr-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr F's complaints about the Council's involvement in his family because a Court decided the children should be cared for by the Council and agreed they could be placed for adoption.

  • Suffolk County Council (16 011 822)

    Statement Upheld Adoption 13-Apr-2017

    Summary: the Council was not at fault for the information it shared with Mrs C as a prospective adopter. There were some delays sharing information about a sibling group. An apology, changes to procedures already put in place and payment of £500 is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.

  • Brighton & Hove City Council (16 010 346)

    Statement Upheld Adoption 03-Mar-2017

    Summary: Mrs G says the way the Council handled questions she raised during the matching process for adoption, left her feeling anxious and worried. The Council was following its policy but it left Mr and Mrs G feeling unnecessarily pressured and intimidated. I find fault causing injustice.

  • Halton Borough Council (16 015 467)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Adoption 24-Feb-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A's complaint about an alleged data protection breach by the Council. This is because this is a matter for the Information Commissioner's Office to consider and decide.

  • Cumbria County Council (16 001 429)

    Statement Upheld Adoption 31-Jan-2017

    Summary: Mrs X and her husband are prospective adopters. The Council has already accepted that its faults led to a significant impact on Mr and Mrs X and their child when its plans to move child Y to live with them fell through. The Council has already apologised. In addition it has agreed to our recommendation to pay £1,000 to acknowledge the family's distress and for the time and trouble caused due to additional faults and delay in the complaints process.

  • London Borough of Lewisham (16 006 564)

    Statement Not upheld Adoption 30-Jan-2017

    Summary: Miss B complains the Council has failed to ensure contact arrangements between her and her birth children (now adopted) are kept to. She says that issues she raises are not investigated. There is no evidence of Council fault.

  • Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (16 004 217)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Adoption 09-Jan-2017

    Summary: The complainant has filed a claim in Court about matters which he has brought to the Ombudsman's attention. The Ombudsman cannot consider complaints where the complainant has taken legal action. The complainant has also raised a concern about the Council's complaint handling which the Ombudsman has addressed.

  • South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (16 012 941)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Adoption 06-Jan-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A's complaint about the placement of her grandchildren because it concerns decisions made by the court.

  • London Borough of Bromley (16 001 959)

    Statement Not upheld Adoption 03-Jan-2017

    Summary: The Council contacted Mrs X repeatedly to ask for information for a review of adoption payments, so it was entitled to suspend those payments when she did not provide the information it asked for.