Archive has 139 results
-
Brighton & Hove City Council (20 003 448)
Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 21-Oct-2021
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his late wife’s care. He said it failed to provide suitable overnight care and it wrongly withdrew the care it had arranged. As a result, Mr X said he and his wife experienced distress and uncertainty. We found the Council was at fault for the lack of clarity about what overnight care support Mrs Y would receive. On balance, it was also at fault for withdrawing the overnight care it had arranged. The Council agreed to apologise and make payment to Mr X to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty it caused him. As Mrs Y has sadly passed away, we cannot remedy the injustice she experienced.
-
Plymouth City Council (21 006 480)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Domiciliary care 19-Oct-2021
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the care provided to Mr X’s neighbour. This is because Mr X does not have consent or standing to complain on behalf of his neighbour.
-
Reading Borough Council (21 007 560)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Domiciliary care 19-Oct-2021
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled social care arrangements. Mr X complained about events that took place pre-2019. We cannot consider late complaints about matters which took place more than 12 months ago. There is no reason why Mr X could not have complained to us sooner.
-
Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 13-Oct-2021
Summary: The Care Provider was at fault when it took photographs in Mr and Mrs B’s home without their consent. This action has caused upset to Mr and Mrs B. The Care Provider has apologised and took action to prevent recurrence by speaking with its staff and issuing policy guidance about privacy issues. As well as the action it has taken, the Care Provider will take off £150 from the outstanding invoice, to recognise the upset, time and trouble its actions have caused Mr and Mrs B.
-
Leeds City Council (21 001 264)
Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 13-Oct-2021
Summary: The Council acknowledges there were failings in the care provided to Mrs Y. The Ombudsman has found fault in the way the Council dealt with concerns raised about Mrs Y.
-
Hartlepool Borough Council (21 006 973)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Domiciliary care 13-Oct-2021
Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the care provided to his son, Mr C in 2019. This is because further investigation could not add to the Council’s response or make a different finding of the kind Mr B wants.
-
London Borough of Lewisham (21 001 950)
Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 12-Oct-2021
Summary: the complainant Mr X complained about the poor service received from a Care Provider commissioned by the Council. The Council has shown it has quality assurance procedures in place. It followed up complaints but did not contact Mr X direct or consider if it should offer a remedy as the commissioner of the service. We found the Council acted with fault and it has agreed a remedy.
-
Agincare Live-in Care (South East) Limited (21 006 883)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Domiciliary care 10-Oct-2021
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of Mrs C’s Care Provider. This is because we are satisfied with the remedy offered by the Care Provider for the injustice caused to Mrs B and Mrs C. Further investigation could not make a finding of the kind Mrs B wants.
-
London Borough of Wandsworth (20 009 339)
Statement Not upheld Domiciliary care 29-Sep-2021
Summary: Miss X complained the Council continued to arrange an expensive care package that was neither wanted nor needed by her. The Council also failed to ensure she was represented at a meeting where this matter was discussed. We do not find fault with the Council’s actions in this matter.
-
Esteemed Life Ltd (20 003 613)
Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 28-Sep-2021
Summary: Miss X complained that Esteemed Life Ltd (the Care Provider) did not provide the agreed care for Mrs Y but still charged for it. She also said it did not deal with her complaint about this properly. She said it charged Mrs Y too much and at times provided unsafe care. We find that, on at least three occasions, the Care Provider did not provide the care as agreed, and only one care worker which meant Mrs Y was at an increased risk of harm. She was also charged for care she didn’t receive. We have recommended the Care Provider return the money Mrs Y had paid but not used and pay her a further £250. It should also pay Miss X £100, ensure it takes appropriate action to avoid this in future and review its complaints process.