Domiciliary care archive 2021-2022


Archive has 139 results

  • London Borough of Newham (20 014 399)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 30-Nov-2021

    Summary: Mr C complains about damage caused by a Council contractor. The Council is at fault for failing to refer the matter to its insurers and to update Mr C about his complaint. This has caused Mr C uncertainty and frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr C and pay him £150. It will also review procedures and advise staff about what steps they should take in future cases of this type.

  • Zest Healthcare Ltd (21 008 919)

    Statement Not upheld Domiciliary care 26-Nov-2021

    Summary: We discontinued the investigation as there was no means of achieving a remedy for Ms Y as the Care Provider is no longer trading.

  • Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (21 000 107)

    Statement Not upheld Domiciliary care 26-Nov-2021

    Summary: Mr X complains that the Council failed to make sure a risk assessment was done for his wife who has care needs. He complains that his wife fell with two carers present and has had no answers from the Council about what happened. Mr X says his wife was injured. The Ombudsman does not find the Council at fault. Mr X also complains that the Council failed to provide bathing equipment for his wife. This part of the complaint is premature, so the Ombudsman has not investigated this part of the complaint.

  • Derbyshire County Council (21 009 873)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Domiciliary care 26-Nov-2021

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about allegations made by carers about Mr X’s behaviour when they provided domiciliary care to his wife. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

  • Swindon Borough Council (21 009 070)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Domiciliary care 25-Nov-2021

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the support the complainant receives from the Council and the amount he is charged for that support. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

  • West Sussex County Council (21 010 303)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Domiciliary care 25-Nov-2021

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an allegation made against Mr X by a carer looking after his wife. This is because this was an isolated incident and it is unlikely we would be able to establish what happened.

  • City of York Council (21 006 314)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Domiciliary care 25-Nov-2021

    Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s late complaint about the care provided to her father, Mr C. This is because we are satisfied with the actions taken by the Council. There is no good reason to exercise discretion in this case.

  • Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (21 005 169)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Domiciliary care 23-Nov-2021

    Summary: Miss X complains that carers would not attempt CPR on her mother, Mrs Y, when she was found unresponsive because there was a DNACPR in place. Miss X had to call 999 and perform CPR herself which she found very distressing. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely we would identify fault by the Council.

  • Bluebird Care (Lewes) (20 010 992)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 19-Nov-2021

    Summary: Mr B complained about the domiciliary care provided to his mother. He also complained the Care Provider failed to provide access its care notes system, pursued him for additional costs after the contract was agreed and signed and inadequately responded to the concerns he raised about sub-standard carer performance. We find that Mr B and Ms C suffered an injustice. The Care Provider has agreed to our recommendations to address this injustice.

  • Care UK Community Partnerships Limited (21 008 453)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Domiciliary care 19-Nov-2021

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the residential care received by the complainant’s mother and the way his complaint was handled. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. It is unlikely an investigation would add anything to the response the complainant has already received. It is not a good use of our resources to investigate complaint handling as a standalone issue.

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