Luton Borough Council (19 008 512)

Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 03-Mar-2020

Summary: There was some fault in the way the care agency provided care to Mrs C, its timekeeping and its communication. The Council has agreed to apologise in writing and pay £150 in recognition of the fault.

Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (19 018 228)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Domiciliary care 03-Mar-2020

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms Z’s complaint about a carer damaging her clothes. This is because this is a matter of negligence and this can only be determined by the insurers or the courts.

Royal Borough of Greenwich (19 015 339)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Domiciliary care 02-Mar-2020

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council has not paid invoices presented by the complainant who is a care provider. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (19 003 419)

Statement Not upheld Domiciliary care 28-Feb-2020

Summary: The Council was not at fault for its response to Mr Y’s complaint about the care his late brother received from a private care provider. It properly considered his concerns and ensured the provider changed its practice.

Essex County Council (19 014 552)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Domiciliary care 27-Feb-2020

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr Q’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to allow his mother to return to live in her own home. We are unlikely to add to the Council’s investigation. In any event, Mr Q may go to court.

Nottinghamshire County Council (19 000 929)

Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 21-Feb-2020

Summary: There was fault in the way the Council decided to reduce Mr B’s support package without a clear explanation. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B.

London Borough of Havering (19 003 730)

Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 17-Feb-2020

Summary: The Council failed to ensure the commissioned care provider (Lodge Care) adhered to the care and support plan for Mrs X. As a result meals and medication were missed and her family was caused considerable anxiety. The Council could not respond fully to the family’s complaint because the care provider’s records were in a process of change. The Council agrees a payment to recognise the anxiety caused by poor care as well as the additional time, trouble and expense caused.

Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (19 008 765)

Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 14-Feb-2020

Summary: There was fault in how the Council carried out its initial assessments of Mrs Z’s care needs, and how it responded when made aware that carers were unable to carry out care in accordance with Mrs Z’s support plan. Consequently, the Council charged Mrs Z for care she did not receive. The Council have now agreed to refund the fees charged.

Northern Case Management Limited (19 006 079)

Statement Not upheld Domiciliary care 13-Feb-2020

Summary: This complaint will be discontinued. It concerns a legal contractual matter and such matters are best left for a Court to decide upon.

Agincare UK Limited (19 004 082)

Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 13-Feb-2020

Summary: The Care Provider failed to properly record services it provided and involve family when the service user’s health declined. As a result, Mrs C lost an opportunity to provide extra help to her mother and potentially see her before she died. The Care Provider has agreed to apologise to Mrs C and make procedural changes. It will also pay Mrs C £500 to reflect the uncertainty caused by these failures, and her time and trouble in making her complaint.