Privacy settings

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.

Adult care services archive 2020-2021


Archive has 1308 results

  • Staffordshire County Council (20 004 575)

    Statement Upheld Charging 31-Mar-2021

    Summary: Mr X, who complains on behalf of his wife, says the Council is at fault in how it assessed the contribution she needs to make towards her care costs. We have found evidence of fault and made recommendations to address this and the injustice caused. The Council agreed to our recommendations and so we ended our investigation of this complaint.

  • Cambridgeshire County Council (20 011 284)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 31-Mar-2021

    Summary: We will not investigate Ms B's complaint about the Council breaching her confidentiality. This is because we could not add to the Council's response or make a finding of the kind Ms B wants. Complaints about breaches of data are for the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), and it would be reasonable for Ms B to ask the ICO to consider whether the evidence she has breaches confidentiality.

  • Palm Court Care (Dawlish) Limited (20 008 195)

    Statement Not upheld Residential care 31-Mar-2021

    Summary: Ms X was not named as Mr B's contact when he was in the care home. The care provider notified the late Mr B's sister, whom he had named as his primary contact, when he died. It was not the fault of the care provider that Ms X did not learn of his death for some months.

  • Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (20 008 321)

    Statement Not upheld Assessment and care plan 31-Mar-2021

    Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council's financial assessment which found her son, Mr Y, had to pay a contribution to his care and support. She said he could not afford the amount required. We found no fault in the Council's actions.

  • Southend-on-Sea City Council (19 019 881)

    Statement Not upheld Assessment and care plan 31-Mar-2021

    Summary: Mrs X complains that the Council did not properly assess the late Mrs Y's needs or her mental capacity and did not ensure her needs were met. She also says it did not explain the funding for Mrs Y's short term care home placement so she believed it would be funded by the NHS. Mrs X says Mrs Y had no money to contribute so the family is left to pay the outstanding charges. We found no fault in the Council's actions.

  • Premiere Care (Southern) Limited (19 004 281)

    Statement Upheld Charging 31-Mar-2021

    Summary: Ms X says Mrs Y's care provider increased her weekly fee by £150 despite her care needs not changing. We have found evidence of fault in how the care provider raised Mrs Y's care fees and have recommended a remedy for the injustice caused to her and any other affected residents. The care provider agreed to our recommendations.

  • Reading Borough Council (19 015 906)

    Statement Not upheld Assessment and care plan 31-Mar-2021

    Summary: the complainant complained the Council failed to properly assess her mother's care and support needs, or her finances leading to a lack of suitable care and creating a large debt. The Council said it assessed the care and provision needed. The Council said it correctly assessed the service user's financial contribution, but this was not paid resulting in the debt now on the account. We find the Council acted without fault in assessing the care needs and financial contributions the complainant's mother needed to pay.

  • London Borough of Hillingdon (20 002 979)

    Statement Upheld Charging 31-Mar-2021

    Summary: Mr X complains about how the Council handled Mrs Y's care costs resulting in him receiving a larger than expected bill. We find the Council was at fault for not specifying how much Mrs X's care charges would be. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and review its procedures to ensure it tells people the costs they must pay for care.

  • Birmingham City Council (20 003 832)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 30-Mar-2021

    Summary: Miss X complains about the standard of care provided to Mr Y. The Council is at fault as NDH Care Ltd provided inadequate care to Mr Y which caused his admission to hospital and failed to identify and seek medical intervention for pressure sores. The Council also did not give adequate consideration to whether a safeguarding referral indicated Mr Y had received poor care. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Miss X to acknowledge the distress caused to her and ensure the care provider makes service improvements.

  • Culpeper Care Limited (20 005 262)

    Statement Upheld Residential care 30-Mar-2021

    Summary: There was fault in the care home's failure to properly check the identity of an agency care worker and in the failure to carry out the necessary Covid-19 checks. Mr C did not receive the one-to-one care he should have done during the morning. In addition, one of the care workers breached Mr C's dignity and right to privacy by taking a photo of him. There was further fault in the Home's actions after it discovered the incidents and in its complaint responses. We recommend the Home apologises, acknowledges the fault and pays £300 to Mr C's daughter.