Archive has 139 results
-
Faster than a Cat Ltd (20 009 795)
Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 27-Sep-2021
Summary: Mrs X complained about the live in care provided to Mrs Y. She said the care workers were not suitable and the Care Provider charged for a notice period although it had refused to provide the care. Mrs X says this caused her stress and inconvenience. We find the Care Provider provided suitable care but did not respond adequately to a changing situation. This meant the arrangement broke down suddenly and this caused injustice to Mrs X. It also charged Mrs X a notice period when it had refused to provide care. We have recommended the Care Provider apologise to Mrs X, pay her £350 for the stress and inconvenience, and take action to avoid similar problems in future.
-
Statement Not upheld Domiciliary care 26-Sep-2021
Summary: There is no evidence of fault by the Care Provider in the way it supplied and charged Mrs Y for homecare services.
-
Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (21 002 965)
Statement Not upheld Domiciliary care 26-Sep-2021
Summary: The investigation into the quality of care provided to Mr Y will be discontinued. This is because any further investigation by the Ombudsman could not make a different finding or provide a different outcome to that provided by the Council
-
Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (20 014 297)
Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 23-Sep-2021
Summary: Mr X complained the Council increased the cost of his wife’s care package without advising him of the change in cost. Mr X says he settled the charges owed with the Council, but the Council then increased the charges. Mr X says he would have changed the care package had he known the extent of the cost. The Ombudsman found fault with the Council’s delay in telling Mr X about the correct care charges. The Council agreed to the Ombudsman’s recommendation to reduce the care charges to £733.39.
-
Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 20-Sep-2021
Summary: Ms C complained to us about the homecare she received, the way in which the care provider investigated an incident, and the way in which it terminated her support package. We found fault with the way in which the care provider recorded some information.
-
Essex County Council (21 007 868)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Domiciliary care 20-Sep-2021
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council changing her domiciliary care agency. We are unlikely to find evidence indicating fault
-
Staffordshire County Council (21 000 328)
Statement Closed after initial enquiries Domiciliary care 09-Sep-2021
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alleged misconduct by carers working with the complainant’s husband. This is because the complainant has not provided consent from her husband to act on his behalf. Additionally, if consent was provided, we would be unlikely to consider the complaint as there is insufficient injustice caused by the alleged fault to warrant investigation.
-
Essex County Council (19 018 751)
Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 08-Sep-2021
Summary: Miss X complains about the service provided to the late Mr Y by care workers arranged by the Health Service. Also, the way it handled her safeguarding concerns about this. Miss X and Mr Y were distressed, and Mr Y sustained an injury which caused significant pain. The Ombudsman finds fault by the Council. It has agreed to apologise, pay Miss X £350, and take action to prevent similar faults in future.
-
Staffordshire County Council (20 007 513)
Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 07-Sep-2021
Summary: Mr X complained about some aspects of the homecare Mr P received by a care provider who had been arranged by the Council. I upheld Mr X’s complaint. The Council has agreed to provide a partial refund of the fees Mr P paid for his care and apologise to Mr X for any distress he has suffered. The Council will also share the lessons learned with relevant staff.
-
London Borough of Ealing (20 011 169)
Statement Not upheld Domiciliary care 06-Sep-2021
Summary: Ms D complained the Council did not properly investigate safeguarding concerns about her mother, Ms C, and the care she was receiving from an independent care agency. Ms D says this caused her anxiety, stress and depression. We found no fault with the Council.