London Borough of Croydon (24 007 428)

Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 30-Mar-2025

Summary: Mr X complains about repeated failures by the Council’s care providers (Horizon Care & Welfare Association, Immaculate Healthcare Services Limited Croydon, Supreme Care Services Ltd and Abletrust Care) to support his grandmother, Mrs Y, between June 2023 and February 2024. There was fault in the care provided by Horizon Care & Welfare Association, Immaculate Healthcare Services Limited Croydon and Supreme Care Services Ltd which either caused harm to Mrs Y or put her at risk of harm. The Council also failed to involve Mrs Y in reviews of her needs. The Council needs to apologise to Mrs Y and make a symbolic payment to her for the distress caused. It also needs to take action to improve working practices.

Shropshire Council (24 006 354)

Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 27-Mar-2025

Summary: There were failings in the domiciliary care provided to Mrs Y, which the care agency acknowledged and dealt with before the complaint came to this office. However, it failed to communicate its actions to Mrs X and failed to apologise for the actions of its carers. We have made a recommendation to address this.

Midshires Care Limited (23 019 829)

Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 25-Mar-2025

Summary: Mr X and Mr Y complained on behalf of Mrs Y about the actions of Midshires Care Limited when providing live in carers for Mrs Y. We found the Care Provider did not tell Mr X and Mr Y certain information about carers, made an unannounced visit to their home, did not communicate properly about care arrangements for Mrs Y after a live in carer placement ended and continued to ask them for payment despite saying a hold was on their account. To remedy the injustice caused the Care Provider agreed to apologise, make a payment for the distress caused and carry out a service improvement.

Oxfordshire County Council (24 006 454)

Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 24-Mar-2025

Summary: Mrs X complains about the care her late mother (Mrs Y) received at the care home, OSJCT Langford View, arranged for her by the Council. The care home’s records do not support what it said to Mrs X when responding to her complaint. It also failed to record her daughter’s visit to Mrs Y. While this did not impact significantly on Mrs Y’s care, the Council needs to apologise for the distress caused and work with the care home to improve its record keeping.

London Borough of Tower Hamlets (23 020 218)

Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 14-Mar-2025

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council’s previous commissioned care provider regularly did not provide the care as set out in her daughter’s care plan, causing frustration and decline in her daughter’s health and wellbeing. We found some fault with the care provider. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay a symbolic payment to recognise the injustice caused.

London Borough of Croydon (24 012 215)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Domiciliary care 11-Mar-2025

Summary: Mr A complained about the way his aunt, Mrs B, was cared for after she left hospital. The organisations wanted her to go into a nursing home and made it difficult for her to return home. There were problems with communication and equipment delivery. We will not investigate this complaint because the Trust accepted it made mistakes and apologised to Mr A and has improved its service. We consider this to be a suitable remedy.

Agincare UK Limited (24 006 212)

Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 10-Mar-2025

Summary: We upheld Mr X’s complaint. Complaint handling was not in line with our expectations, record-keeping was poor and staff conduct in a meeting unprofessional. This caused avoidable distress. The Care Provider has accepted our recommendations for a further apology, a symbolic payment and actions for it to take to improve its service and minimise the chance of recurrence.

London Borough of Lambeth (24 014 664)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Domiciliary care 10-Mar-2025

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the quality of domiciliary care as we cannot add to the Council’s investigation.

Norfolk County Council (24 004 051)

Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 10-Mar-2025

Summary: Mrs X complains about the care provided to her late mother by the Council commissioned care provider, Guild healthcare Ltd. We find the Council was at fault. This caused significant distress to Mrs X. The Council has agreed to make several recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.

Walter Manny Limited (24 010 322)

Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 07-Mar-2025

Summary: The Care Provider adequately investigated Mrs X’s complaint about the quality of care provided by a live-in-carer to her husband, before the complaint came to this office. A suitable remedy was provided. There is no more this office could add to this.