Domiciliary care

Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Wakefield City Council (18 004 731)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 19-Feb-2019

    Summary: The Council should have ensured the action plan which it agreed with the care provider Springfield (acting on its behalf) was followed. The Council will now apologise to Mrs A for the anxiety caused by its failure to ensure the care plan was delivered, and offer a sum to recognise her distress.

  • London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (18 007 262)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 15-Feb-2019

    Summary: Ms X complains about the quality of domiciliary care provided to her late mother. The Council did not ensure the care agency addressed Ms X's concerns properly. Consequently, the problems continued which meant that Mrs Y did not receive the service to which she was entitled.

  • Step Ahead Care Homes (18 006 709)

    Statement Not upheld Domiciliary care 14-Feb-2019

    Summary: There is no evidence that the actions of the care provider Step Ahead caused any injustice to Mrs X or her daughter Ms A.

  • Mrs Jane Marie Somai (18 005 154)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 13-Feb-2019

    Summary: Mrs X complained about the care her mother-in-law, Mrs Y, received from the Care Provider, and about how it responded when she raised concerns. The Care Provider was not at fault in how it cared for Mrs Y. However, there were insufficient records, including around risk assessments and complaint investigation. The Care Provider did not respond to parts of Mrs X's complaint. These faults did not cause Mrs Y to suffer any harm. However, they led to uncertainty and time and trouble for Mrs X. The Care Provider has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and pay her £150. It has also agreed to review how it handles complaints and update its complaint response letters. In response to my recommendations the Care Provider has already issued a staff reminder about the importance of record-keeping and updated its complaints policy.

  • Nottinghamshire County Council (18 004 522)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 12-Feb-2019

    Summary: Failure to make proper contingency arrangements caused injustice to Mrs X's family, who are left with uncertainty of not knowing whether their mother's death was hastened by her fall. The Council will now apologise for the actions of the care provider Carewatch (acting on its behalf), and offer a payment to Mrs X's family to recognise their distress.

  • Surrey County Council (18 004 653)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 12-Feb-2019

    Summary: Mrs X says that care organised for her by the Council was inadequate. The Ombudsman has found some evidence of fault. He recommended the Council liaise with the care provider to ensure these failings do not reoccur and that it apologise to Mrs X and pay her £100 in recognition of the loss of service caused to her by the failings he has identified. The Council agreed.

  • Surrey County Council (18 001 932)

    Statement Not upheld Domiciliary care 07-Feb-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains about the care the Council provided and the charges. He says this caused him much distress, worsened health and wellbeing, and financial loss. The Ombudsman finds no fault causing injustice.

  • Gloucestershire County Council (18 001 614)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 05-Feb-2019

    Summary: There is evidence of fault in this complaint. The Council failed to properly monitor the quality of domiciliary care provided to Mrs Y. It also failed to address reports about Mrs Y's son's inappropriate behaviour. This caused an injustice in terms of the quality of care Mrs Y received and to her family in terms of worry and uncertainty she was not being cared for properly.

  • Calderdale Home Care Limited (18 012 039)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 05-Feb-2019

    Summary: Mr B complains that the Care Provider wrongly charged him for care it delivered to his mother and that it did not appear to have a complaints procedure. The Care Provider was at fault because Mr B was given unclear information about care charges and Mr B's complaint was not responded to. The Care Provider has agreed to refund half the care charges and review its website and documents to make sure its complaints procedure is clear and visible.

  • Bayford New Horizons Limited AKA Bluebird Care (Chichester) (18 010 994)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 04-Feb-2019

    Summary: There was no reason for the care provider to notify Mr and Mrs X's family that they had refused to go to bed: both Mr and Mrs X had capacity to make that decision for themselves. The care provider acknowledges its initial response to Mrs A was poor and has offered to reduce the notice payment in recognition. That is a satisfactory way to remedy any injustice.