Residential care archive 2020-2021


Archive has 238 results

  • Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (19 018 895)

    Statement Not upheld Residential care 27-Jan-2021

    Summary: Mr X complains the Lakes Care Centre (where the Council placed his late wife for respite care in May/June 2017) failed to look after her properly, resulting in a significant decline in her mental health and her being sectioned under the Mental Health Act. The evidence does not support this claim.

  • Nightingale Hammerson (19 020 959)

    Statement Upheld Residential care 26-Jan-2021

    Summary: There is evidence of fault in some aspects of the care provided to Mr & Mrs X during their short stay in a residential care home. The care provider’s response to the complaint was factually inaccurate on some points and gave conflicting explanations

  • London Borough of Croydon (20 004 819)

    Statement Upheld Residential care 26-Jan-2021

    Summary: Ms A has complained about a care home and GP regarding their response to a fall her mother suffered in March 2020. The care home has already apologised for its delay in communicating with the family and there is nothing more we could achieve. We will not investigate this case as we are unlikely to find any further fault or add to the previous investigation by the care provider.

  • Amberley Lodge - Purley (20 004 819a)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Residential care 26-Jan-2021

    Summary: Ms A has complained about a care home and GP regarding their response to a fall her mother suffered in March 2020. The care home has already apologised for its delay in communicating with the family and there is nothing more we could achieve. We will not investigate this case as we are unlikely to find any further fault or add to the previous investigation by the care provider.

  • The Orders Of St. John Care Trust (20 001 968)

    Statement Upheld Residential care 22-Jan-2021

    Summary: Mrs B complained of inadequate care given to Mr B during a respite stay in November 2019. The care provider failed to keep adequate records, raised Mrs B’s expectations about the provision Mr B would receive, failed to provide adequate care on occasion, failed to properly consider Mr B’s diabetes and lost a pair of trousers. That caused Mr B to miss out on some provision, caused Mrs B distress and led to her going to time and trouble to pursue the complaint. A financial payment, training for care home staff and managers, agreement to refund the cost of the missing trousers or replace them and changes to procedures is satisfactory remedy.

  • Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (19 016 531)

    Statement Upheld Residential care 22-Jan-2021

    Summary: The complaint relates to the Council’s decision to change the way it provided support to Ms D which led to a reduction in the support package that Ms D received. The Council has assessed Ms D’s needs and provided a replacement support package, but there was a lack of clarity in how the Council assessed that the initial care package met Ms D’s needs. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms D and pays her £150.

  • Barchester Healthcare Homes Limited (20 005 169)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Residential care 21-Jan-2021

    Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s late complaint about care provided to her husband, Mr B in 2018 and 2019. This is because Mrs B could have complained to us sooner and there is no good reason for us to disapply the law and investigate this late complaint now.

  • The Willows Residential Care Home (20 001 678)

    Statement Not upheld Residential care 20-Jan-2021

    Summary: The care provider took prompt action to meet the late Mr X’s needs and safeguard other residents, as well as explain to Mrs A the need for 1:1 care. The complaint will not be upheld as the actions of the care provider did not cause injustice to Mr X or Mrs A.

  • Parklands Care Services Limited (20 001 461)

    Statement Upheld Residential care 19-Jan-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained the care provider, Parklands Care Services Ltd, unfairly and inappropriately increased his father, Mr F’s care fees. The care provider was at fault. The terms in its contracts relating to fee increases are not in line with Competition and Markets Authority guidance which means it is likely they are unfair under consumer law. This causes Mr X and all other residents and their representatives across the care provider’s care homes uncertainty about future care fee increases. The care provider agreed to review its contract to ensure it complies with the guidance and consumer law.

  • St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (19 017 594)

    Statement Upheld Residential care 19-Jan-2021

    Summary: Mr B complained about the care given to his late mother (Mrs C) in two care homes. He said she and the family were caused distress and uncertainty. We found fault in the way the Council communicated to Mr B regarding CCTV footage of his mother and the Council agreed it failed to carry out a monitoring visit of one of the homes or inform the family of the outcome of the safeguarding investigation. The Council has already apologised and offered to pay £300. It has also agreed to pay a further £200 (the total of £500 to be offset against the outstanding bill).

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