Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole (BCP) Council has agreed to check whether it has paid friends and family foster carers properly over the past five years, following an investigation by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman has asked the council to consider backdating fostering allowances to carers after it received a complaint from the relatives of two vulnerable children who believed they had not been supported properly.

The relatives had taken in the children after the siblings’ parents were unable to look after them. The children were deemed at risk, and were on Child Protection Plans, due to their parents’ problems, and their unsafe living environment.

At the time, the council considered it was a private arrangement between the children's parents and the relatives. This meant the family carers were not provided with appropriate financial assistance and support from the council, and the children missed out on the support to which they were entitled as ‘looked after children’.

The relatives complained to the council in their own right, and also on behalf of another relative who looked after the children. The council’s own investigation found it was at fault. It offered them a significant sum as a token payment for the financial impact of caring for the children, and for the cost of the therapy the children needed. However, it still did not accept it had been responsible for placing the children in their relatives’ care.

The Ombudsman found the council had been actively involved in the case, including involving the Police, and so the relatives should have been entitled to the council’s support.

Michael King, Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, said:

“Children cared for by friends and family foster carers are often some of the most vulnerable in society: so it is vital that those looking after them receive the full support to which they are entitled.

“In this case it is quite clear that had the relatives not taken the children under their wings, they would have needed state care, so the council should have treated their relatives as friends and family foster carers.

“It is to the council’s credit that it has readily accepted my recommendations, and I hope the changes it will now make will ensure relatives’ situations are made clear when they take on the role of foster parents in future.”

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s role is to remedy injustice and share learning from investigations to help improve public, and adult social care, services. In this case the council has agreed to apologise to the relatives and calculate what they should have received in family fostering payments between March and July 2017, and also what family fostering allowances they should have received between late October and early December 2017, and between the middle of December 2017 to September 2019.

It should also make a payment of £750 to one set of relatives, and £300 to the other relative for their avoidable distress.

It will also provide £1,000 for each child to be used appropriately to make up for the lack of statutory support, along with legal funding for the relatives to apply for a Special Guardianship Order for the children.

The Ombudsman has the power to make recommendations to improve processes for the wider public. In this case the council has agreed to produce an advice leaflet for carers. It will also check whether other family carers have been similarly disadvantaged and tell the Ombudsman whether it will be willing to backdate those carers’ fostering allowances. It will also exercise discretion to look at historic complaints from families which approach it within 12 months and who are complaining about events from up to five years ago.

Article date: 08 June 2021

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman Rob Behrens was pleased to present a new study at the IOI World Conference on Wednesday 26 May: The Art of the Ombudsman: leadership through international crisis. The study sets out the findings of an international research project initiated by Rob with support from the International Ombudsman Institute and the University of Glasgow.

Ombudsman offices were both involved in and affected by the COVID-19 pandemic as they sought to help citizens whose lives had been affected in unprecedented ways. The research set out to identify the challenges this presented and the different ways in which Ombudsman offices across the world were responding. The study is based on responses from 53 Ombudsman schemes in 37 different countries.

The comparative experiences of Ombudsman offices raises interesting questions about the role of an Ombudsman during times of crisis, and the contribution they can make to learning lessons in real time where their powers enable them to do so. The study also raises broader questions of leadership and organisational development.

You can read the report here.

Read Rob’s blog about the study here.

El Defensor del Pueblo (e.f.), Francisco Fernández Marugán, ha reclamado a la Comunidad de Madrid los datos de demora media para primera cita disponible en atención primaria, tras recibir quejas por la elevada presión asistencial que registran los centros de salud de la región.

Aunque la Institución lleva años recibiendo quejas sobre la insuficiencia en la dotación de recursos humanos en la atención primaria madrileña, sobre todo relativas a las condiciones de precariedad laboral y escasez de profesionales, las situaciones de retraso para recibir asistencia se están incrementado de manera significativa desde el pasado verano. 

Desde septiembre de 2020, el Defensor ha iniciado por ese motivo medio centenar de expedientes referidos a alrededor de 40 centros de salud o consultorios. Las quejas de los ciudadanos refieren intervalos de diez días o más, desde la petición hasta la primera cita disponible para ser atendidos en sus centros de salud.

A juicio de la Institución, la identificación de la demora específica entre la solicitud de consulta por el paciente y la primera cita disponible en cada centro de atención primaria permitiría conocer si la prestación se realiza realmente a tiempo y en caso de no ser así, ofrecer una respuesta de carácter organizativo y llevar a cabo una adecuación de los recursos humanos.

Sin embargo, la Consejería no ha facilitado los datos solicitados sobre esa demora media, y ha señalado además que el indicador sobre demora para consulta no es aplicable en el nivel de la atención primaria.

El Defensor del Pueblo no entiende que no pueda disponerse de esta información, dado el grado de informatización del sistema y le ha recordado a la Consejería de Sanidad que los servicios de salud de otras comunidades autónomas no han tenido problemas para facilitar sus datos sobre demora para cita en consultorios y centros de salud concretos, cuando así lo ha pedido la Institución en estos últimos meses. Tampoco lo tuvo la propia Consejería madrileña cuando se le requirió esta información en el pasado.

Así las cosas, el Defensor ha recomendado a la Comunidad de Madrid que “establezca los mecanismos que permitan conocer el periodo comprendido entre la solicitud de consulta por el paciente y la primera cita disponible en cada centro de atención primaria”.

En opinión de la Institución, la atención primaria desempeña un papel crucial como base del sistema sanitario y por tanto garantía del derecho a la protección de la salud, y la actual emergencia sanitaria ha revelado, aún más, las importantes debilidades estructurales que le afectan en algunos territorios.

Ahora más que nunca, en estos tiempos de pandemia, la atención primaria tiene que ampliar su capacidad de respuesta para poder atender en plazos razonables a todos los pacientes.

Por ello, la Institución también ha solicitado a la Consejería de Sanidad que detalle las medidas de refuerzo de personal facultativo y de enfermería previstas a corto y medio plazo en el Plan Integral de Atención Primaria y los datos concretos sobre los plazos de su ejecución. Plazos que, a juicio del Defensor del Pueblo, deberían ser breves, para evitar que la situación empeore aún más durante el periodo estival.

During the COVID-19 period, the Ombudsman has monitored the conditions in the institutions of the Prison and Probation Service.

The Ombudsman has made recommendations and raised issues with the authorities about testing strategy and isolation of inmates, among other things. The Ombudsman is now concluding his monitoring and expressing satisfaction that the Prison and Probation Service has focused a great deal on the area.

‘It is important to prevent infection spreading. At the same time, inmates within the Prison and Probation Service continue to live in quite restrictive conditions due to COVID-19, so it is also important that the restrictions are not extended further than necessary. Therefore, it is positive that the Prison and Probation Service has focused on both preventing infection spreading and making a plan for a gradual easing of restrictions for the inmates,’ says Ombudsman Niels Fenger. In this connection, he points out that it is a good thing that the Prison and Probation Service can draw on its own imedical expertiseand the health authorities while preparing its efforts.

Better prevention and phasing out restrictions
During the COVID-19 period, the Prison and Probation Service has changed its contingency plans, so that it is now expressly stated that new inmates
must be screened and that, to the greatest extent possible, it must be avoided to place new inmates in double occupancy cells. In addition, the Department
of Prisons and Probation’s testing strategy has been developed so that it is now possible to test new inmates, among others.

In March 2021, the Prison and Probation Service presented a plan for phasing out the restrictions that have been implemented. However, during the
most recent lockdown from the end of 2020 and in 2021, the inmates have been able to receive visits from 3-5 closely connected persons, and to a certain
extent, they have been allowed to go on leave for Christmas and Easter.
Similar offers were not available during the first lockdown in 2020.
 

As a part of the COVID-19 monitoring, the Ombudsman has visited two state prisons, two local prisons and one halfway house and been in dialogue with
the Department of Prisons and Probation and the Danish National Police.
Read the news item of 14 July 2020 here.
Further information:
Niels Fenger, Parliamentary Ombudsman, tel. +45 42 47 50 91
Morten Engberg, Senior Head of Department, tel. +45 33 13 25 12