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:

  • Platinum Community Care Limited (20 006 080)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 07-Jun-2021

    Summary: Miss X complains on behalf of Mrs Y that Platinum Community Care Limited overcharged Mrs Y for care provision. Miss X complains the care provider sent two carers per visit when Mrs Y only required one. Miss X says this caused financial loss to Mrs Y. We have found fault by the care provider who has agreed to provide a remedy to address the injustice caused.

  • South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council (20 009 423)

    Statement Not upheld Domiciliary care 02-Jun-2021

    Summary: Ms C complained the homecare provider, commissioned by the Council, left her mother without support from her care workers for 18 hours. We decided to discontinue our investigation, because the injustice that Mrs M actually experienced was not sufficient to justify our continued involvement.

  • Foremost Care UK Limited (20 008 034)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 17-May-2021

    Summary: Ms X complains about the care company's failure to provide answers about the care it provided to her late sister. There was service failure which caused Ms X an injustice. I recommend Foremost Care UK reviews its complaints procedures; apologises to Ms X and offers her a time and trouble payment.

  • Austen Allen Healthcare Limited (20 003 629)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 14-May-2021

    Summary: Mrs D complained about the unsatisfactory standard of domiciliary care provided to her mother, Mrs E, by Austen Allen Healthcare Ltd. Mrs D also complained that care calls were inconsistent and too short. We find that Mrs E and Mrs D suffered an injustice. To remedy this, the care provider has agreed to apologise to Mrs E and Mrs D, and pay Mrs E and Mrs D a financial remedy.

  • Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (19 013 404)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 14-May-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with Mrs Y's care. The Ombudsman has found fault by the Council and one of its commissioned care providers in the monitoring, and standard, of care provided to Mrs Y. The Council has agreed to remedy this by apologising, making a payment to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by the faults and providing evidence of service improvement.

  • Calderdale Home Care Limited (20 005 367)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 14-May-2021

    Summary: Ms B complains that her mother, Mrs C, received inadequate care which resulted in her falling and suffering significant injuries. There is insufficient evidence to conclude that the care Mrs C received caused her to fall. However, the carer was at fault in moving her after the fall instead of seeking medical advice. In recognition of the uncertainty about whether this may have contributed to her injuries, the care provider has agreed to make a payment to Mrs C.

  • Peterborough City Council (19 009 369)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 11-May-2021

    Summary: Mr D complains, on behalf of his mother Ms G, that the Care Provider did not properly provide care for Ms G, on behalf of the Council. The Council was at fault because the Care Provider did not meet some of Ms G's needs and did not follow its complaints process. Ms G has passed away and Mr D suffered distress. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr D and pay him £200.

  • City of Wolverhampton Council (20 001 484)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 05-May-2021

    Summary: There is evidence of fault by the Council in the way it dealt with a safeguarding investigation about the quality of domiciliary care provided to Mr Y. The Council is also at fault for wrongly informing Mr Y's son to complain directly to the Care Provider, as a commissioner of the care, it the Council that was responsible for dealing with complaints about the care.

  • Helping Hands Live in National (20 004 589)

    Statement Not upheld Domiciliary care 28-Apr-2021

    Summary: Mrs X complains about the standard of live-in care the care provider gave to her mother Mrs Y and its decision to charge a cancellation fee when she ended the care agreement. There is no evidence the actions of the care provider caused injustice to Mrs X or Mrs Y so we have completed our investigation.

  • Comfort Call Limited (20 007 908)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 22-Apr-2021

    Summary: Mr D complained the Care Provider failed to provide some of the care it agreed to provide to Mr X, and it charged him incorrectly for the care provided. He also said it failed to correct its errors when he brought it to its attention. The Provider agreed it was at fault and apologised to Mr D. However, this was not enough to remedy the injustice caused. And so, the Provider also agreed to apologise to Mr D and make a payment to acknowledge the distress and time and trouble Mr D experienced.