Domiciliary care

Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Care Connect UK Limited (16 007 634)

    Statement Not upheld Domiciliary care 12-Sep-2017

    Summary: Ms X complains about the care provided to her late mother, Mrs T. There is some evidence of fault in the Council's failure to communicate the outcomes from its safeguarding enquiries. However, it will apologise to Ms X for this failing and this is a suitable resolution. There is no evidence of fault in the actions of Care Connect or the Trust.

  • Premium Care Solutions Limited (16 018 993)

    Statement Not upheld Domiciliary care 08-Sep-2017

    Summary: Mrs J complains about one of Premium Care Solutions' carers leaving her daughter on 20 February when there was no other carer to hand over to. The evidence does not support the claim that Premium Care Solutions' actions caused the daughter injustice.

  • Nationwide Care Services Ltd (16 017 344)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 31-Aug-2017

    Summary: The care provider overcharged Miss Y for the care provided to her mother. This is evident from the contemporaneous worksheets completed by care staff. The provider will refund the overpayment and apologise to Miss Y for the avoidable time and trouble this error caused.

  • Factor of Four Ltd (16 015 209)

    Statement Not upheld Domiciliary care 31-Aug-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman has stopped investigating this complaint about a home care provider. This is because further investigation would not achieve a worthwhile outcome.

  • Warwickshire County Council (16 013 262)

    Statement Not upheld Domiciliary care 31-Aug-2017

    Summary: The Council was not at fault when Mrs Y had seven different care providers and many changes of carers including a male carer.

  • Bishops Senior Care Limited (17 000 829)

    Statement Not upheld Domiciliary care 16-Aug-2017

    Summary: The care provider acted promptly and appropriately when Mr and Mrs X raised concerns about a care worker's actions. There was no fault in how it responded to Mr and Mrs X's complaint.

  • Staffordshire County Council (16 018 207)

    Statement Not upheld Domiciliary care 10-Aug-2017

    Summary: The Council acted without fault when deciding an elderly resident could move to sheltered accommodation with a care package rather than to a residential home. It examined concerns about the care package without fault also.

  • K&T McCormack Ltd (16 019 090)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 09-Aug-2017

    Summary: The care provider correctly charged for the care it provided to Mr B. It should have referred Mr X to the Ombudsman after it considered his complaint about this matter. This did not cause Mr X injustice as he did complain. The care provider should review its procedures to ensure its complaints procedure is available to clients and complainants are referred to the Ombudsman.

  • London Borough of Bexley (16 017 929)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 04-Aug-2017

    Summary: The Council agreed to reduce the amount of Mr X's care charges by the amount it could reasonably calculate had been overcharged. It now requires the care agency (Aquaflo, which acted on its behalf) to log its care calls electronically to avoid future errors in charging. However, the Council remains responsible for the agency's actions in overcharging. It has now agreed to acknowledge the distress caused to Mr X by the receipt of the incorrect bills by an additional payment.

  • Essex Senior Care Limited (16 016 449)

    Statement Not upheld Domiciliary care 03-Aug-2017

    Summary: Essex Senior Care Ltd trading as Home Instead did not cause injustice by allegedly failing to sensitively handle complaints against a client although it did not provide the full month's review period it had offered due to staffing difficulties.