Domiciliary care


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Storm Homecare Ltd (19 003 864)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 01-Apr-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman found a home care provider was entitled to end a care agreement, but there was fault with the way it communicated this to the family. The Ombudsman also found fault by the care agency in missing a carer visit. However, the care provider has acknowledged the fault and taken appropriate action to put this right.

  • Hamax Ltd (19 011 412)

    Statement Not upheld Domiciliary care 30-Mar-2020

    Summary: There was no evidence of fault in the way the agency's carer provided care to Mr and Mrs D while she lived with them.

  • Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (19 008 936)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 18-Mar-2020

    Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to provide appropriate care and support to her grandmother, Mrs Y, causing Mrs Y to suffer a painful death. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault causing Mrs Y and her family distress. He recommends the Council provides an apology, makes a payment and acts to prevent recurrence.

  • Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (19 009 804)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 12-Mar-2020

    Summary: The Council did not provide a proper response to complaints about the service the complainant received from a home care agency. The Council has implemented several service improvements, both with respect to the commissioning of care, and also its investigation of complaints and safeguarding concerns. The Council also offered a financial remedy for the complainant's distress, and her representative's time and trouble, but has agreed to increase this offer upon recommendation from the Ombudsman.

  • North Yorkshire County Council (19 005 211)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 10-Mar-2020

    Summary: Mrs X complains the Council's actions have prevented her from accessing an appropriate care and support package to meet her assessed needs. The delays in completing Mrs X's reassessment were in part due to fault by the Council, but this fault has not caused Mrs X a significant injustice. The failure to finalise Mrs X's support plan or provide her with a support package is not due to fault on the part of the Council.

  • Hertfordshire County Council (19 009 394)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 06-Mar-2020

    Summary: Mrs Y complained about a carer from First Choice Medical Solutions, providing home care to her father, Mr X. This care was arranged by the Council. The carer recorded they had visited her father, checked on him and provided care. Mr X had died earlier that day, before the visit. The carer falsified records and did not provide the care they said they had. The Council carried out a safeguarding investigation, made recommendations and is following up action with First Choice. It has agreed to apologise to Mrs Y, summarise its learning from what happened and how it has applied this learning to prevent reoccurrence for others. It has also agreed to provide us with the outcome of its further inspection.

  • South Yorkshire Senior Care Services Limited (19 003 195)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 03-Mar-2020

    Summary: There was fault by the South Yorkshire Senior Care Services Limited (the Provider) when it charged for home care while that late Mrs B was in a hospice. It did not consider whether it should charge in the circumstances, as required by its contract with Mrs B. In its old contracts the Provider requires clients to give more notice than it must give to end the contract. This is likely to be unfair. The Provider should apologise to Mr B and refund to Mrs B's Estate the fees it charged during the notice period.

  • Luton Borough Council (19 008 512)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 03-Mar-2020

    Summary: There was some fault in the way the care agency provided care to Mrs C, its timekeeping and its communication. The Council has agreed to apologise in writing and pay £150 in recognition of the fault.

  • Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (19 005 947)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 03-Mar-2020

    Summary: There was a delay of three weeks in the Council arranging for an agency to provide Mrs B's home care. This caused Mrs B and her family avoidable inconvenience and meant the family are likely to have provided care that should have been provided or arranged by the Council. To remedy the injustice, the Council will apologise and pay Mr A and Mrs B £100 each to reflect the avoidable inconvenience.

  • Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (19 003 419)

    Statement Not upheld Domiciliary care 28-Feb-2020

    Summary: The Council was not at fault for its response to Mr Y's complaint about the care his late brother received from a private care provider. It properly considered his concerns and ensured the provider changed its practice.