Privacy settings

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.


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • London Borough of Redbridge (20 013 366)

    Statement Upheld COVID-19 12-Sep-2021

    Summary: Mrs X complains the Council's care provider, Churchfields Nursing Home, failed to provide her mother with the support she needed, resulting in her having a fall, and failed to respond properly to the incident, causing further distress. Churchfields was wrong to leave Mrs Y unsupervised when her family visited her. The Council needs to apologise to Mrs Y and her family for the distress they have been caused.

  • HC-One Oval Limited (20 009 845)

    Statement Not upheld COVID-19 09-Sep-2021

    Summary: Miss X complains HC-One Oval Limited (HC-One) restricted her contact with her father, who lives in one of its care homes. This did not cause injustice to Miss X, as she has continued to see her father away from the care home.

  • Central Bedfordshire Council (20 010 840)

    Statement Not upheld COVID-19 03-Sep-2021

    Summary: The Council was not at fault in the way it retrospectively charged his aunt, Mrs A, for her residential care after she was discharged from hospital under the government COVID-19 hospital discharge service requirements.

  • East Riding of Yorkshire Council (20 008 271)

    Statement Upheld COVID-19 01-Sep-2021

    Summary: Mr X complains the Council has failed to deal properly with the reopening of day services following the first COVID-19 lockdown, resulting in his daughter's (Ms Y's) care needs not being fully met. The Council delayed in organising the reopening of day centres, causing avoidable distress to Ms Y and leaving her parents meeting most of her care needs for too long. The Council needs to apologise and pay financial redress.

  • Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (20 013 548)

    Statement Not upheld COVID-19 31-Aug-2021

    Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to look after her mother properly while she was living in Meavy View Retirement Home during the COVID-19 pandemic. We have discontinued the investigation into this complaint, as the Council is not accountable for what went on at Meavy View Retirement Home.

  • Wakefield City Council (20 011 548)

    Statement Upheld COVID-19 31-Aug-2021

    Summary: Two sisters complain The Sycamores, where the Council placed their late mother, failed to tell them about the decline in her health, which meant they could not spend any time with her before she died. The Sycamores failed to record all its contacts with the sisters and failed to tell them about calling NHS 111 on 14 June 2020. The Council needs to apologise for the distress caused by these failings and work with The Sycamores to improve its record keeping.

  • London Borough of Hounslow (20 008 131)

    Statement Upheld COVID-19 04-Aug-2021

    Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to exercise enough flexibility over the use of direct payments during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Council failed to follow the Government's guidance on Using direct payments during the coronavirus outbreak when Ms X asked to use her son's direct payments to employ a live-in carer. This left her providing full-time care for longer than was necessary. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay financial redress.

  • Barchester Healthcare Homes Limited (20 007 203)

    Statement Upheld COVID-19 30-Jul-2021

    Summary: Mrs D complained the Care Provider was at fault when it cared for her mother Mrs E, who contracted COVID-19 when in its care. We do not find fault in the care Mrs E received or the decision of the Care Provider to stop visits to its homes. But we do have some concerns about the Care Provider's disclosure of information regarding infections. We also find there was some poor communication between Mrs D and the Care Provider after Mrs E passed away and in its handling of her complaint. This has led the Care Provider to make apologies to Mrs D. It has agreed to also put a note on its files regarding the finding of this investigation in accord with Mrs D's wishes.

  • Bristol City Council (20 012 222)

    Statement Upheld COVID-19 28-Jul-2021

    Summary: Ms X complained about the way the Council dealt with her request for a Disabled Facilities Grant. We find the Council was at fault for delay in arranging the Occupational Therapy assessment. There were also faults in its communication with Ms X. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X for frustration caused. It is already writing an action plan to address Disabled Facilities Grant wait times.

  • Avery at Loxley Park (Homecare) Limited (20 013 504)

    Statement Not upheld COVID-19 28-Jul-2021

    Summary: Ms X complains Avery the Care Provider failed to look after her late uncle, Mr Y, properly, resulting in him having a fall and causing her avoidable distress. Mr Y's fall was an unfortunate accident, rather than due to fault by the Care Provider.