Archive has 139 results
-
Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (20 013 726)
Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 18-Nov-2021
Summary: There was fault by the care provider, PhemaCare Limited, Birmingham, commissioned by the Council to provide care on its behalf. The Council’s care provider failed to respond properly to Mr and Mrs B’s complaints. This caused Mr and Mrs B distress and frustration at a time when Mr B was vulnerable and recovering from serious illness. The care provider should apologise to Mr and Mrs B, and the Council should work with it to implement its complaints policy properly.
-
London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (21 003 281)
Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 12-Nov-2021
Summary: The Council acknowledges it did not follow its usual process in seeking to resolve Mr X’s problems with his previous domiciliary care provider. Mr X now has a new care provider giving a satisfactory service, the Council has improved its processes and offered a proportionate sum to Mr X and his family in recognition of the distress caused. That is a suitable remedy for the injustice suffered and I have completed the investigation.
-
Report Upheld Domiciliary care 11-Nov-2021
Summary: Adverse Findings Notice issued because Peepal Care Ltd failed to provide the remedy recommended by the Ombudsman following an investigation.
-
Lancashire County Council (21 000 199)
Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 10-Nov-2021
Summary: Ms X complained the Council commissioned care provider made unfounded allegations about her mother Mrs Y’s behaviour, carried out short visits and the Council failed to reduce Mrs Y’s care package from two care workers to one care worker per visit. The Council was at fault. It failed to discuss the allegations with Ms X and Mrs Y and failed to properly respond to her complaint about this. The care provider also failed to properly document all its concerns in the care records. This caused Ms X frustration and distress and meant Mrs Y paid for double handed care longer than necessary. There was no fault in the care provider’s decision not to agree to single handed care or in the length of care visits. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms Y and pay her £500 to acknowledge the extra care she paid for. It has also agreed to apologise to Ms X and pay her £150 to acknowledge the frustration caused. It has agreed to take action to prevent a recurrence of the faults in future.
-
Bluebird Care (Peterborough & Rutland) (20 002 168)
Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 09-Nov-2021
Summary: The Care Provider, or those acting on its behalf, caused distress to Mr C’s family following the provision of ‘live in’ care at Mr C’s home. The Care Provider will apologise and make a payment in recognition to acknowledge the distress.
-
Sunderland City Council (20 012 735)
Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 01-Nov-2021
Summary: Mrs C complained on behalf of her cousin, Ms B (who is deaf) about the actions of the Council in trying to set up a companion service to improve Ms B’s social isolation. We agreed with the Council’s conclusions that it was at fault and we also agreed with its proposals to put matters right, which include paying Ms B £500 for her distress and Mrs C £200 for her time and trouble in pursuing the complaint. The Council has also agreed to send Ms B a copy of its revised communications policy, place the policy on its website and to consider providing deaf awareness training to frontline staff.
-
Hartlepool Borough Council (20 011 910)
Statement Not upheld Domiciliary care 01-Nov-2021
Summary: Mr X complained about poor care provided to his late father, Mr Y, as part of a Council-commissioned care package. He also says the Council did not respond appropriately to his safeguarding alert. The Council was not at fault.
-
Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 29-Oct-2021
Summary: Mrs X complained about the care provided to the late Mr Y. She said the Care Provider commissioned by the Council did not provide adequate care and did not alert family to his situation. She also said neither the Council nor the Care Provider safeguarded Mr Y. She felt Mr Y was treated like rubbish and said family were devastated by the way he was living. We found the Council and Care Provider were not at fault in the way they dealt with Mr Y. However, the Council did not deal properly with Mrs X’s complaint. It has already taken some action and will ask for an upcoming review of safeguarding to consider its approach in this case.
-
Report Upheld Domiciliary care 28-Oct-2021
Summary: Adverse Findings Notice issued because Care 1st Ltd failed to provide the remedy recommended by the Ombudsman following an investigation.
-
Gloucestershire County Council (19 014 556)
Report Upheld Domiciliary care 22-Oct-2021
Summary: Ms P complained about the way the Council assessed and met Miss X’s care needs. She says the Council failed to meet Miss X’s needs, failed to support her partner (Mr L) who was her carer, failed to take account of relevant medical information, failed to provide over-night care, failed to implement promises it made in its complaint response, and that the social worker communicated poorly. Ms P says this meant Miss X was left in her own faeces and urine, her health worsened, and Mr L left because of the lack of support which resulted in burn-out.