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.

Domiciliary care


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • SNE Care Services Ltd (20 011 514)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 30-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mr X complained the Care Provider, SNE Care Services consistently failed to provide adequate care for him and his son Mr Y. He said this caused him and Mr Y distress. The Care Provider was at fault when it sent carers to attend to Mr X and Mr Y who were late and changed appointments without forewarning. The Care Provider is also at fault for failing to take Mr X's complaint through its complaints process. The Care Provider will provide Mr X with an apology and remind its staff of the importance of following its complaints procedure. The Care Provider will also provide training to its staff to ensure they complete records accurately and deliver a timely service.

  • Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (21 003 950)

    Statement Not upheld Domiciliary care 25-Mar-2022

    Summary: Ms Y complains the Council failed to safeguard her health as a result of alleged failings in the provision of care. She also says the Council's contractor, which is responsible for assisting her with care arrangements, failed to help her resolve problems with her care provider. We have not identified any fault by the Council which did take action during its safeguarding process by relaying concerns to Ms Y's care provider. We also do not consider Ms Y has suffered an injustice by reason of any alleged fault by the Council's contractor. The complaint is therefore not upheld.

  • Warrington Council (21 003 417)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 16-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mr X has complained about poor care delivered to his daughters by a care provider. The Council is at fault as there were instances of poor care delivered by the care provider which caused distress and avoidable time and trouble to Mr X and his family. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice to Mr X by apologising and making a payment of £750 to him.

  • Christies Care Ltd (21 007 762)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 15-Mar-2022

    Summary: The Care Provider acknowledged failings in the management of Mrs Y's care before the involvement of this office, but it failed to offer an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused.

  • Caring Hands East London Ltd (21 005 978)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 15-Mar-2022

    Summary: the complainant Miss X complained the Care Provider failed to prevent poor service from its care workers leading to Miss X experiencing a loss of care and increased anxiety. The Care Provider said it suspended the care worker responsible for the unprofessional care and offered a suitable alternative. We found the Care Provider caused injustice and recommended a remedy.

  • Hand 2 Hold Limited (20 012 509)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 15-Mar-2022

    Summary: the complainant Mrs X complained the Care Provider failed to provide the care service she expected putting her parents at risk. This caused anxiety and distress. The Care Provider says it resolved any issues brought to its attention. We found the Care Provider caused injustice for which we have recommended a remedy.

  • Warwickshire County Council (21 012 309)

    Statement Not upheld Domiciliary care 07-Mar-2022

    Summary: The care provider was within its right to terminate its services, and it did so after following the correct process. There can be now worthwhile outcome from any further investigation by this office.

  • Suffolk County Council (21 001 703)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 03-Mar-2022

    Summary: Ms X complained that carers dropped her while lifting her using a hoist. She said the hoist strap was not securely attached. Ms X also complained about the way the Council responded to her complaint about the incident, and that it did not contact her for weeks afterwards. Ms X said being dropped caused her injury, and she is now reluctant to engage with care services because of a lack of trust. She also said the Council's response made her feel dismissed. We find the Council at fault for the way it conducted its enquiry. This caused Ms X injustice because it denied her an opportunity to be involved in the process and give her version of events, and it caused uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and make improvements to its service.

  • Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (21 003 325)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 02-Mar-2022

    Summary: Mrs C said the care agency organised by the Council did not follow her care plan. She complained the agency sent male care workers to provide domiciliary care when her care plan stated she wanted females. The Council was at fault for failing to record Mrs C's carer preferences and its delay sourcing a new care provider. The Council offered Mrs C a suitable remedy for the injustice caused by its faults. The Council will make service improvements to prevent future injustice to others.

  • Kirstens Care Ltd (21 007 132)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 28-Feb-2022

    Summary: Ms X complained about the standard of care provided to her brother, Mr T over forty days in summer 2021 by Kirstens Care Ltd. There was fault in Kirstens Care's record keeping and complaint handling which caused Ms X uncertainty about the level of care received by Mr T and frustration. Kirstens Care Ltd agreed to apologise to Ms X for the frustration and uncertainty and to make service changes to prevent a reoccurrence of events.