Domiciliary care archive 2020-2021


Archive has 94 results

  • Bluebird Care AKA BenJeMax Limited (19 016 311)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 17-Dec-2020

    Summary: Mr B complains there were a series of poor communications by the Care Provider when he commissioned it to provide care for his disabled wife. We uphold the complaint. We find the Care Provider did not give clear information about its costs to Mr B before beginning care and did not serve proper notice when it decided to end care. This caused injustice in the form of distress, frustration and time and trouble. The Care Provider accepts these findings. At the end of this statement we explain the action it has agreed to remedy that injustice.

  • Royal Borough of Greenwich (20 007 272)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Domiciliary care 16-Dec-2020

    Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council has refused to recognise corporate manslaughter. This is because the Coroner is the appropriate person to make enquiries.

  • Lancashire County Council (20 001 673)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 15-Dec-2020

    Summary: Ms X complained about the quality of reablement care provided to Mrs Y on behalf of the Council. The Council was at fault for failing to ensure CRG Homecare kept proper records and provided a female carer for Mrs Y. This caused Ms X unnecessary distress and frustration. The Council has agreed to make a symbolic payment and ensure CRG Homecare reminds staff to record their visits properly.

  • Golden Services Care Limited (20 004 339)

    Statement Not upheld Domiciliary care 15-Dec-2020

    Summary: No injustice was caused to Mr X by the actions of the care provider: its contract clearly states a cancellation fee would be payable.

  • East Riding of Yorkshire Council (19 000 261)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 11-Dec-2020

    Summary: Mrs X complained the Council commissioned care provider, Burlington Homecare, failed to provide appropriate care and support to her late mother, Mrs M. In addition, the Council failed to provide Mrs X with appropriate advice and support. There were faults by the care provider including failing to ensure it met Mrs M’s care needs and failing to take action when she was not in when it visited. The Council also failed to provide advice and support to Mrs X. These faults caused Mrs X distress and worry. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Mrs X, provide evidence it has taken action to address the faults it identified through its complaint investigation and ensure the care provider reviews its procedures to consider whether action should be taken when service users do not answer or are not in when it visits

  • Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (20 006 173)

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

    Summary: We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint that the provider of care to her mother agreed to investigate her complaint about a care worker but it failed to do so. This is because it is unlikely we would add anything significant to the care provider’s investigation or achieve significantly more for Miss B.

  • Westminster Homecare Ltd (19 012 003)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 01-Dec-2020

    Summary: Mrs B complains on behalf of her stepmother, Mrs Y. She says carers did not complete their full allocated hours caring for Mrs Y. Mrs B says carers often arrived late or left early but the Provider still charged for the full hours. The Ombudsman finds fault in the times and durations of visits to Mrs Y and in how it responded to non-payment of fees.

  • Peepal Care Limited (19 019 828)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 30-Nov-2020

    Summary: There is evidence of fault by the Care Provider. It failed to properly vet all home carer workers before introducing them to Mrs Y and failed to ensure the care workers it recruited had the necessary skills and experience. It also breached Mrs Y’s privacy in its discussion with a third party not related to her care.

  • South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (19 018 924)

    Statement Not upheld Domiciliary care 30-Nov-2020

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly investigate allegations made by his carers that he behaved in an inappropriate manner. The Council is not at fault.

  • Promedica24 UK Limited (19 018 993)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 26-Nov-2020

    Summary: The care provider did not ensure care workers with the right skills and experience were employed to support Mr X. As a result he became distressed and Mrs X had to terminate her contract with the agency.

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