Domiciliary care archive 2021-2022


Archive has 139 results

  • Foremost Care UK Limited (20 008 034)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 17-May-2021

    Summary: Ms X complains about the care company’s failure to provide answers about the care it provided to her late sister. There was service failure which caused Ms X an injustice. I recommend Foremost Care UK reviews its complaints procedures; apologises to Ms X and offers her a time and trouble payment.

  • Austen Allen Healthcare Limited (20 003 629)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 14-May-2021

    Summary: Mrs D complained about the unsatisfactory standard of domiciliary care provided to her mother, Mrs E, by Austen Allen Healthcare Ltd. Mrs D also complained that care calls were inconsistent and too short. We find that Mrs E and Mrs D suffered an injustice. To remedy this, the care provider has agreed to apologise to Mrs E and Mrs D, and pay Mrs E and Mrs D a financial remedy.

  • Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (19 013 404)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 14-May-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with Mrs Y’s care. The Ombudsman has found fault by the Council and one of its commissioned care providers in the monitoring, and standard, of care provided to Mrs Y. The Council has agreed to remedy this by apologising, making a payment to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by the faults and providing evidence of service improvement.

  • Calderdale Home Care Limited (20 005 367)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 14-May-2021

    Summary: Ms B complains that her mother, Mrs C, received inadequate care which resulted in her falling and suffering significant injuries. There is insufficient evidence to conclude that the care Mrs C received caused her to fall. However, the carer was at fault in moving her after the fall instead of seeking medical advice. In recognition of the uncertainty about whether this may have contributed to her injuries, the care provider has agreed to make a payment to Mrs C.

  • Peterborough City Council (19 009 369)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 11-May-2021

    Summary: Mr D complains, on behalf of his mother Ms G, that the Care Provider did not properly provide care for Ms G, on behalf of the Council. The Council was at fault because the Care Provider did not meet some of Ms G’s needs and did not follow its complaints process. Ms G has passed away and Mr D suffered distress. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr D and pay him £200.

  • Wellbeing Homecare Services Limited (20 013 456)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Domiciliary care 06-May-2021

    Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about money being taken from his mother’s, Mrs C’s, bank account for care fees. This is because Mr B can ask the Council to consider his concerns under its responsibility as lead Safeguarding Authority.

  • Nottinghamshire County Council (20 013 542)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Domiciliary care 06-May-2021

    Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about a bill for a care service. This is because the complaint is late and there is insufficient information for us to reach a safe enough conclusion now on whether the Council is at fault by pursuing payment of the charges in question.

  • City of Wolverhampton Council (20 001 484)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 05-May-2021

    Summary: There is evidence of fault by the Council in the way it dealt with a safeguarding investigation about the quality of domiciliary care provided to Mr Y. The Council is also at fault for wrongly informing Mr Y’s son to complain directly to the Care Provider, as a commissioner of the care, it the Council that was responsible for dealing with complaints about the care.

  • Helping Hands Live in National (20 004 589)

    Statement Not upheld Domiciliary care 28-Apr-2021

    Summary: Mrs X complains about the standard of live-in care the care provider gave to her mother Mrs Y and its decision to charge a cancellation fee when she ended the care agreement. There is no evidence the actions of the care provider caused injustice to Mrs X or Mrs Y so we have completed our investigation.

  • Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (20 012 555)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Domiciliary care 22-Apr-2021

    Summary: We do not propose to investigate this complaint about the Council’s allocation and monitoring of care providers for the complainant’s mother. This is because investigation by the LGSCO would not add anything to the Council’s response or provide an additional outcome.

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