Archive has 139 results
-
Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (21 004 869)
Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 11-Feb-2022
Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of his wife about the actions of Comfort Call, the care agency commissioned by the Council. The Council was at fault for the delay in telling him about the concerns carers raised, carers changing last minute and often arriving late. This resulted in avoidable distress and uncertainty for Mr X and his wife. The Council agreed to pay Mr X and his wife £150 each for the injustice its faults have caused them.
-
London Borough of Newham (21 010 753)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Domiciliary care 11-Feb-2022
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint relating to the domiciliary care package her father received leading up to his death in 2018. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and I see no good grounds to exercise discretion to consider this late complaint now.
-
Sheffield City Council (21 012 371)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Domiciliary care 11-Feb-2022
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about care and support the Council provided to Mr X’s father before he passed away. This is because Mr X has not provided us with sufficient evidence to show he is a suitable person to raise this complaint.
-
Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council (21 001 821)
Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 01-Feb-2022
Summary: Miss C complains there was inadequate planning and communication about a change of equipment used to move and transfer her mother. Miss C says this led to the domiciliary care provider giving notice and her mother suffered avoidable distress. We have found fault by the Council but consider the agreed action of an apology, payment and review of internal communication provides a suitable remedy.
-
Arrigadeen Nursing Home Limited (21 008 951)
Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 01-Feb-2022
Summary: The Care Provider failed to give the required notice period to cease its home care service. Although there were reasons for this, the Care Provider’s actions meant the family could not find alternative home care provision, and Ms C had to leave her home at short notice. This was distressing for Ms C, and it was stressful for her family to find alternative care provision at short notice. The Care Provider should make a payment to acknowledge the impact of its actions.
-
London Borough of Waltham Forest (21 009 027)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Domiciliary care 01-Feb-2022
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that a carer gave the complainant a cold. This is because it is unlikely we could add to the Council’s response.
-
City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (21 000 239)
Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 28-Jan-2022
Summary: Mr P complained about the Council’s failure to provide his mother with appropriate care causing distress and frustration. We have found the Council to be at fault because it did not arrange care for five days and cannot show it responded to concerns about poor care. To remedy the injustice caused by these faults, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment and review its procedures.
-
Oxfordshire County Council (21 004 488)
Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 25-Jan-2022
Summary: Miss B complains on behalf of her partner who has health and care needs (Mr W). She says the quality of the care provided by the Council’s third party care provider has been poor. Further, Miss B says care staff were inappropriate and her complaints led the care provider to unfairly give notice for the care to be terminated. We found the care provided failed to provide an adequate level of care. The Council is ultimately responsible for the provision of care and so we consider it was at fault. This caused Mr W an injustice and so we have recommended a number of remedies.
-
Statement Not upheld Domiciliary care 25-Jan-2022
Summary: There is no evidence the care provider unnecessarily put in place additional care without agreement or failed to provide a good standard of care. There were some minor concerns about carers’ actions and the care provider apologised for these. The actions of the care provider did not cause injustice to Mr and Mrs X.
-
Suffolk County Council (21 002 572)
Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 21-Jan-2022
Summary: Mrs X says a care plan drawn up by a care provider did not address her friend’s complex needs and he did not receive the service from the care provider even though he was charged for it. There was fault by the Council because it identified a need for her friend to be dealt with by a complex needs team but did not act on it. The Council agreed to waive outstanding charges and offer a partial refund of payments made by Mrs X’s friend.