Archive has 94 results
-
Infinite Care Limited (19 013 085)
Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 03-Sep-2020
Summary: Mrs X complained the care provider continued to provide double handed care calls when she needed single handed calls and cancelled the care without notice. The care provider was at fault for the lack of clarity about the support it was providing to Mrs X and its lack of records. This caused Mrs X confusion. The care provider should reduce the bill and review its record keeping procedures. It was not at fault for cancelling the contract or for continuing with double handed care after a reassessment.
-
Staffordshire County Council (19 007 136)
Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 02-Sep-2020
Summary: The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for failing to ensure Ms C received the care set out in her care plan. It also failed to effectively implement the recommendations it made in its stage one complaint response. This means there is uncertainty about the amount Ms C was charged for her care and whether the care met her needs. The Council agrees to make a financial payment and implement service improvements to remedy the injustice.
-
Three Sisters Care Ltd (19 014 625)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Domiciliary care 02-Sep-2020
Summary: The complaint is made by a representative, with a lasting power or attorney, for the person who the complaint is about. The Ombudsman’s view is there is doubt about whether the representative is a suitable person to make the complaint. So we have discontinued our investigation.
-
Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (19 010 364)
Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 02-Sep-2020
Summary: Ms X complains about the care she receives from care providers, the way the Council handled her care provision, and the way the Council handled her complaint. She says this means her health is at risk, and conflict with carers adds to stress and depression. Largely, the Ombudsman does not uphold Ms X’s complaint. This is because we have found no fault. However, the Ombudsman upholds part of Ms X’s complaint on the basis that the Council did not ask Ms X if she needed any further reasonable adjustments when dealing with her complaint. This fault caused Ms X injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and review its complaints procedure.
-
London Borough of Southwark (19 014 608)
Statement Not upheld Domiciliary care 28-Aug-2020
Summary: There was no fault in the standards of care provided to the complainant, in a home care package commissioned by the Council. For this reason, the Ombudsman has completed his investigation.
-
Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (18 015 872)
Report Upheld Domiciliary care 25-Aug-2020
Summary: Mr X complains on behalf of his late parents. He says the Council did not properly consider the risks of separating them after 59 years of marriage or of Mr Y living on his own. He complains about the quality of care it provided to them both and says it did not deal adequately with his concerns and complaints. He also complained that the safeguarding process was flawed, and the Council would not give him a copy of Mr Y’s assessment.
-
Blossom Home Care Ltd (19 015 999)
Statement Not upheld Domiciliary care 25-Aug-2020
Summary: Mr X and Mr Y complain the care provider cancelled their care visits without notice leaving them without access to care and support. The care provider was not at fault for ending its service to Mr X and Mr Y as they were refusing to accept support.
-
Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 24-Aug-2020
Summary: Miss B complained the care provider failed to deliver the agreed care, failed to ensure its staff acted appropriately, delayed raising concerns with her family and failed to follow its policy when cancelling care provision and in responding to a complaint. The contract provided by the care provider did not fully explain when it could terminate the contract, the care provider failed to explain why it had ended the contract in this case without holding a meeting it had agreed, failed to follow the complaints procedure or respond to the complaint fully. That caused Mrs C frustration and time and trouble to pursue her complaint. An apology and procedural changes are satisfactory remedy.
-
Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (19 013 110)
Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 21-Aug-2020
Summary: Mrs X complains on behalf of her late father, Mr Y, about the care provided by the Council. She says this caused much stress and meant Mr Y’s last days were chaotic. She wants the Council to take the matter seriously and the Care Provider to be more accountable. The Ombudsman finds the care provided to Mr Y put him at an increased risk of harm and caused him distress. It also caused Mrs X and Mrs Y stress and frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs Y and Mrs X, pay them £350 and waive 20% of the care costs to remedy the injustice. It will also take action to prevent similar problems in future.
-
Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 18-Aug-2020
Summary: Mrs S says the care provider failed to provide adequate care for her brother, Mr B whose legs required daily treatment. She says this caused Mr B injustice in that it caused his leg skin to break down. The care provider was at fault and this fault caused injustice. It should reduce its bill and pay Mr B and Mrs S sums in recognition of the injustice caused.