Domiciliary care


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Staffordshire County Council (17 019 036)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 08-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mr D complained the Council failed to put in place a care package for his mother following an assessment. The Council's procedures for assessing priority and contacting care providers are inadequate. That leaves Mr D not knowing whether his mother could have received a care package before she died which would have reduced the stress on him. Changes to procedures, an apology and a financial payment are satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.

  • Dorset County Council (18 000 204)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 07-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mr B says the Council did not take appropriate action in response to his father, Mr C's self-neglect. He also complains about the care agency's actions when it could not gain access to Mr C's home. The Council should have reviewed Mr C's care plan and the agency should have reviewed what actions it would take when Mr C was not at home. The Ombudsman recommends the Council apologises to Mr B.

  • Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (18 006 916)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 05-Mar-2019

    Summary: There is evidence of fault in this complaint. Some of the domiciliary care provided to the late Mr Y was poor. During the Council's investigation about this it failed to give sufficient weight to the evidence Ms X provided. This caused Ms X unnecessary frustration and distress.

  • Warwickshire County Council (18 009 017)

    Statement Not upheld Domiciliary care 04-Mar-2019

    Summary: Mrs X complained about the quality of domiciliary care provided to her mother by the care provider, arranged by the Council. We have discontinued the investigation to give the Council the opportunity to investigate and respond to the complaint.

  • Hillingdon and Uxbridge Homecare Ltd (18 003 856)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 04-Mar-2019

    Summary: the Care Provider failed to use a system which provided accurate monthly invoices for care, delayed amending inaccurate invoices, failed to explain charges for petrol, failed to tell the family about staff changes in advance, failed to ensure carers used the login system, gave contradictory information about when a review would take place, failed to give a reason for terminating care and failed to have in place a proper complaints procedure. That led to Mr C having to go to time and trouble to pursue his complaint and to his sister having to spend time checking the Care Provider's invoices. An apology, payment to Mr C and Miss D and changes to procedures is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.

  • Mediline Home Care Limited (18 011 362)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 26-Feb-2019

    Summary: Mrs X complains about the care provided by Mediline Home Care for her father and its decision to stop providing care for him. There have been problems with the care provided for her father which have had an adverse impact on Mrs X. Mediline Home Care needs to apologise and provide financial redress.

  • 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.

;