Domiciliary care archive 2020-2021


Archive has 94 results

  • Excell Home Care Limited (20 002 593)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 02-Mar-2021

    Summary: The investigation into this complaint will be discontinued. The care company has now offered to waive all outstanding charges, and refund Mrs Y the retainer fee she paid

  • Agincare UK Limited (19 020 058)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 25-Feb-2021

    Summary: The care provider failed to keep records as is required. It also failed to properly investigate the complaint into this matter and to implement the recommendations made in its response. In recognition of the injustice caused by these failings we recommended the care provider refunds Mr Y’s care costs for the month prior to his death, apologises to his family, amends its procedures and reminds its staff of the conduct it expects from them. The care provider agreed.

  • Classic Home Care Services Limited (20 003 594)

    Statement Not upheld Domiciliary care 17-Feb-2021

    Summary: Ms Y complained on behalf of a relative, Mrs Z, about Classic Home Care Services (CHCS) Limited which provided privately-arranged care at home. Ms Y complained the level of care was increased unnecessarily and without consideration of affordability. Ms Y also complained that CHCS failed to inform her about matters relating to Mrs Z’s care. We found no evidence the actions of the care provider were at fault causing injustice to Mrs Z.

  • Leeds City Council (19 016 019)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 16-Feb-2021

    Summary: There is evidence of some failings in the care provided to Mr Y. I do not consider any significant injustice was caused to Mr Y or Mr X. I am also satisfied the Care Provider and the Council responded adequately to the concerns Mr X raised. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council monitored the care provided to Mr Y. There is no outstanding injustice that requires a remedy.

  • Promedica24 (Lancashire) Limited (19 020 763)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 16-Feb-2021

    Summary: Mrs X complained about the home care service provided by Promedica24 (Lancashire) Limited. We have found fault because Mrs X was not provided with person-centred care that was suitable for a person with dementia. We cannot say this caused a deterioration in Mrs X’s health, but we are satisfied it caused distress to Mrs X that requires a remedy. To remedy this injustice, Promedica24 (Lancashire) Limited has agreed to apologise, cancel notice period charges, and make a payment to Mrs X. It has also agreed to ensure appropriate training is provided to the relevant personnel.

  • Surrey County Council (20 010 031)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Domiciliary care 16-Feb-2021

    Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the way her late mother, Mrs C, was treated by her care provider. This is because any further investigation by the Ombudsman could not make a different finding or provide Mrs B with a different outcome to that provided by the Council.

  • Chantry Court Care Ltd (20 003 986)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Domiciliary care 15-Feb-2021

    Summary: We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about the actions of her late father’s, Mr C’s care provider. This is because any further investigation could not provide Ms B with a different outcome to that she has received from Mr C’s care provider.

  • Liverpool and Sefton Homecare Limited (20 000 716)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 10-Feb-2021

    Summary: Miss C complained about the domiciliary care package provided to her late mother. Miss C said her mother paid for care she did not receive and her family had to provide personal care. We have found fault as some care outcomes were not consistently achieved but consider the agreed actions of an apology, partial refund of fees and procedural improvements provide a suitable remedy.

  • Durham County Council (20 001 116)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 08-Feb-2021

    Summary: the complainant complained the Council’s commissioned Care Provider, Comfort Call (Durham) failed to provide services it had commissioned leading to his mother not receiving all the care she needed, putting her at risk of harm and causing distress to the family. The Council says Comfort Call accepted fault and committed to improvements but that any further remedy was unnecessary. We find the Council at fault for the poor care service and it has agreed to apologise, pay £500 to the complainant, and monitor the contractor’s future performance.

  • Central Bedfordshire Council (20 009 153)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Domiciliary care 04-Feb-2021

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about liability for expenses that the complainant says were caused by the actions of the Care Provider supporting his wife at their home. This is because the complainant has a remedy in court and it is reasonable to expect him to use it.

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.

Privacy settings