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.

Residential care archive 2017-2018

Archive has 188 results

  • APS Care Ltd (16 015 689)

    Statement Upheld Residential care 29-Mar-2018

    Summary: Mrs C complained to us the care home where her husband had stayed for a period of respite care, had failed to provide him with the medication he needed. The Ombudsman found fault with the way in which the care home managed Mr C's medications and how it investigated Mrs C's complaint. The care provider has agreed to provide a written apology to Mrs C and pay an amount of £1,600.

  • London Borough of Tower Hamlets (16 011 254)

    Statement Not upheld Residential care 29-Mar-2018

    Summary: The Ombudsman found the Home, on behalf of the Council and the CCG, had managed a patient's nutrition adequately and made the correct referrals when swallowing difficulties arose. We also found there was not fault in the Home's record keeping, communication and managing of residents' finances.

  • Friends of the Elderly (17 006 197)

    Statement Upheld Residential care 29-Mar-2018

    Summary: Ms X has complained about the care her mother received from the home before she went in to hospital. There is evidence of fault with some aspects of Mrs Y's care and with how the home communicated with her family. The home has already given a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

  • London Borough of Ealing (17 003 284)

    Statement Not upheld Residential care 28-Mar-2018

    Summary: Miss X complains about the quality of respite care the Council provided to the late Mrs Y. The Ombudsman found the Council was not at fault.

  • Westminster City Council (17 005 842)

    Statement Not upheld Residential care 27-Mar-2018

    Summary: Mr X complains about the Council preventing contact with his son. The Ombudsman will not continue this investigation as the courts are considering matters related to Mr X's complaint.

  • Springhill House (Accrington) Limited (17 005 640)

    Statement Not upheld Residential care 26-Mar-2018

    Summary: There is no evidence that the way the care provider looked after Mrs X resulted in a deterioration of her condition, or that the care provider exaggerated Mrs X's dependency to increase her fees.

  • Porthaven Care Homes No 2 Limited (17 008 532)

    Statement Not upheld Residential care 26-Mar-2018

    Summary: Mrs X complained about the respite care Mrs M received at her care home. She said that, as a result, she had no other choice but to immediately remove her mother. There was fault with regards to one of the concerns Mrs X raised. However, the Ombudsman did not agree with Mrs X that the care Mrs M had received warranted a (full) refund of her care home fees.

  • Tarry's Residential Home Limited (17 014 301)

    Statement Not upheld Residential care 26-Mar-2018

    Summary: the Ombudsman considers there is no fault by the care provider in charging for a notice period after Mrs X left a care home. However, the provider miscalculated the refund by two days and it will refund this to Mrs X.

  • City of York Council (17 015 821)

    Statement Upheld Residential care 23-Mar-2018

    Summary: The Ombudsmen find no fault in the way a care home and GP practice responded to a resident's declining health, or in the way the home tried to manage the resident's personal care needs. However, the Ombudsmen find fault in way the care home managed the resident's pressure area needs. This caused an injustice. The Ombudsmen recommend an apology and an action plan to address this.

  • Akari Care Limited (17 008 981)

    Statement Upheld Residential care 21-Mar-2018

    Summary: Ms X complained the Care Provider failed to provide her a refund for overpaid care charges paid by her mother Mrs Y. There is no fault in the way the Care Provider has calculated the amount owed to Ms X. However, the Care Provider sent Mrs Y an invoice when she was no longer in the care home, provided confusing information to
    Ms X and failed to clearly explain how it calculated the refund. The Care Provider has agreed to pay Ms X £250 to recognise the frustration and uncertainty caused to her.