Prestige Care (Sand Banks) Limited (20 009 769)

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

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the way his mother’s, Mrs C’s, care provider has communicated with him. This is because the actions of Mrs C’s care provider have not caused a significant enough injustice to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. The Care provider has apologised for comments made by staff Mr B feels are disrespectful, and the Ombudsman is satisfied this remedies any injustice caused to him.

Ross Healthcare Limited (20 000 434)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Residential care 12-Feb-2021

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the level of fees charged for a residential placement. This is because we are unlikely to find fault causing injustice with the actions of the Care Provider.

Avery Healthcare Group (20 000 896)

Statement Upheld Residential care 12-Feb-2021

Summary: Mr X complained about the care provided to his late mother, Mrs Y, at Darwin Court Care Home. There was no fault in the personal care provided to Mrs Y or in the way the care provider investigated an allegation she was assaulted. There was fault when it moved Mrs Y to a high dependency dementia unit without involving relatives and in its failure to clearly explain how funded nursing care affected the care fees. Mrs Y was not overcharged for her care but the care provider has agreed to apologise to Mr X and pay him £200 to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty caused by these faults. It has also agreed to review its procedures to prevent these faults recurring.

Surrey County Council (19 020 697)

Report Upheld Residential care 10-Feb-2021

Summary: Mrs X complained about her late mother’s (Mrs Y’s) care on the day she died. Surrey County Council (the Council) arranged and funded Mrs Y’s care in Puttenham Hill Care Home (the Care Home). Mrs X complained the care home: delayed in calling emergency services; did not have appropriate staff; and did not protect Mrs Y’s dignity when she was dying, provide appropriate care or communicate with the family adequately. Mrs X says this caused her avoidable distress. She found her mother’s body unexpectedly, causing her significant shock at the time and alarm that such a situation could have occurred.

Heathbrock Limited (20 001 241)

Statement Not upheld Residential care 09-Feb-2021

Summary: Mrs X complained about the actions of Heathbrock Limited Care Provider who provided respite care for her husband. The Care Provider was at fault when it failed to provide Mrs X with written confirmation of additional costs associated with providing her husband with one to one care. The Care Provider has agreed to make procedural changes to prevent a reoccurrence.

Smartmove Homes Limited (19 019 946)

Statement Upheld Residential care 05-Feb-2021

Summary: Mr H complains the care provider has delayed repaying overpaid care home fees. He is the executor of his uncle’s estate and has been trying to resolve the issue for many months. The Ombudsman’s view is the care provider did delay responding to Mr H. Although this delay was not the reason for the confusion about how much they owe, it was avoidable. It led to unnecessary time and trouble and frustration for Mr H. The care provider has agreed to apologise.

Kent County Council (20 008 671)

Statement Upheld Residential care 05-Feb-2021

Summary: Mr H complains the Council gave him incorrect information about how it was dealing with payments to his uncle’s care provider. We uphold the complaint. Our view is the Council did give confusing advice and did not respond to Mr H’s contacts seeking to resolve the issue. The Council has agreed to our suggested remedy.

Sunrise Senior Living Limited (19 018 850)

Statement Upheld Residential care 04-Feb-2021

Summary: Mrs B complained about the care provided to her late husband at Sunrise of Hale Barns care home. She also complained about the charges which she says increased from the figure she was first given. She considered the poor care hastened Mr B’s decline and death. There was some fault which caused injustice to Mr B and Mrs B for which the care provider will apologise.

Chislehurst Care Limited (20 001 154)

Statement Upheld Residential care 01-Feb-2021

Summary: Mrs X complained the care provider failed to take action when her late mother, Mrs Y, said she was assaulted during a respite stay at the care home. The care provider was at fault when it failed to take the allegations seriously or refer them to safeguarding. The Council carried out a safeguarding investigation and made recommendations for improvement which the care provider has implemented. The care provider was also at fault for the delay in responding to Mrs X’s complaint. It has already apologised for this.

Cheshire East Council (19 018 012)

Statement Upheld Residential care 01-Feb-2021

Summary: Ms E complained that the care home where her late grandmother, Mrs F, was a resident took too long to call for an ambulance and her family before she died. She also complained there was a do not attempt resuscitation decision missing from Mrs F’s file and her room was not cleaned the day after she died. We find the Council was at fault because there was no process in place to review the do not attempt resuscitation documentation and Mrs F’s room was not cleaned after she died. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused.