Privacy settings

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Domiciliary care archive 2016-2017

Archive has 74 results

  • Pegasus Care Limited (16 004 082)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 30-Mar-2017

    Summary: The Care Provider failed to provide evidence of several care visits it had invoiced the executors of Mrs Z's will for. It delayed a little in responding to correspondence about this. This caused the complainants avoidable time and trouble in getting the care charges corrected. The Care provider agreed to reduce the bill, removing charges for the calls there was no evidence of.

  • London Borough of Hillingdon (16 012 232)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 29-Mar-2017

    Summary: There was fault in how the care agency contracted by the Council responded when a carer reportedly lost Mr D's keys. However, it later agreed to cover the cost of replacing them, which is a suitable remedy.

  • Solihull Care Limited (16 008 500)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 23-Mar-2017

    Summary: Mr A complained about the standard of cleaning services he received from Solihull Care Limited (Solihull Care Domiciliary Service). The poor quality of the work undertaken has been acknowledged. The care provider's offer to refund 50% of the last 5 months housework service costs is a fair and reasonable way of settling the complaint and we will not pursue it any further.

  • Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (16 011 185)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 22-Mar-2017

    Summary: Both Mrs G and the Council had some responsibility for the damage to her lock. The Council agreed to refund half the cost of the new lock and apologise for its handling of this matter.

  • Leicestershire County Council (16 014 233)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 20-Mar-2017

    Summary: The Council changed its adult social care charging policy, and as a result, Mr Y is now liable to contribute to the cost of his care. But the Council did not properly communicate this before it imposed the charge. Therefore Mr Y, who has dementia, and his family lost the opportunity to make an informed decision about his care provision. To remedy the injustice the Council will waive the outstanding invoice.

  • Coventry City Council (16 007 490)

    Statement Not upheld Domiciliary care 16-Mar-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman found no fault on Ms P's complaint made on behalf of her late sister about the care she received when a new care provider took over in June 2015.

  • London Borough of Bromley (16 008 131)

    Statement Not upheld Domiciliary care 16-Mar-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsmen found no fault in the amount of physiotherapy offered to Mrs F or in the arrangements for her discharge from hospital. The Trust was at fault in not following up a referral for community physiotherapy, but it has already taken suitable action to put this right.

  • Trafford Council (16 009 165)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 16-Mar-2017

    Summary: The care provider, Home Care Support, commissioned by the Council failed to give Mr X satisfactory care for two weeks. Once reported to the Council, it took appropriate action to ensure that Mr X was safe but it failed to communicate this with Mr Y.

  • Carewatch Care Services Limited (16 012 498)

    Statement Not upheld Domiciliary care 15-Mar-2017

    Summary: The Care Provider accepted fault, apologised, removed inappropriate charges and changed its system of manually checking calls on the system. I do not consider there is any further injustice requiring a remedy.

  • Curzon Care Limited (16 004 062)

    Statement Not upheld Domiciliary care 09-Mar-2017

    Summary: The Care Provider was entitled to decide not to accompany Mr X outside his home while he was cross-dressing. There was no fault in the Care Provider's actions to end its contract with Mr X.