Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Liverpool admits shortchanging hundreds of carers

  • Comment

Liverpool City Council faces a substantial bill of backpayments to 340 foster carers after a watchdog found it had shortchanged just one to the tune of £11,000.

The underpayments were uncovered during an investigation by the Local Government Ombudsman, which was triggered by a single complaint.  

This investigation found that Liverpool had wrongly refused to classify a woman’s nephew as a ‘looked after child’ when she was caring for him. This meant she missed out on support and financial payments.

The ombudsman’s wider investigation pinpointed a further 340 carers who were also underpaid by the city authority.

Nigel Ellis, executive director of investigations at the LGO, urged other local authorities to examine their own payment procedures. “It is only fair that these people, who do such a good job of giving children the chance of family life, get the benefits and allowances they rightly deserve. These allowances are not ‘pay’ – they are used to clothe and feed the children being looked after.”

Liverpool has embarked ona ‘thorough review’ of its policies.

Councillor Jane Corbett (Lab), its cabinet member for children’s services, said; “I would like to apologise to the special guardian in this case who was not paid at the correct rate. This is something we have remedied very quickly. “I have called for an investigation to find out how this situation came about and to ensure that nothing like this ever happens again.

“Despite the cost implications, balanced against the financial challenges the authority is facing, we recognise that the Ombudsman’s ruling is absolutely fair.”

  • Comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.