Domiciliary care

Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Aevus limited (18 014 289)

    Statement Not upheld Domiciliary care 06-Jun-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains his Care Provider's decision to prevent his adult son from being present while he receives care within his own home is unfair and unnecessary. The Ombudsman's investigation found no evidence of fault in the Care Provider's approach and actions in this case.

  • Staffordshire County Council (18 008 612)

    Statement Not upheld Domiciliary care 05-Jun-2019

    Summary: The Council did not intervene in Mrs X's private care arrangements. There was no fault in the way the Council acted.

  • Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council (18 002 106)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 04-Jun-2019

    Summary: Mr C complained about the home care support his sister received. He said carers were often turning up late or not at all. The Ombudsman found fault with regards to the support his sister received. The Council has agreed to provide an apology, pay a financial remedy to Mr C's sister and his mother, and ensure the lessons learned are shared with relevant staff.

  • Verina Daly Care Ltd (18 013 586)

    Statement Not upheld Domiciliary care 03-Jun-2019

    Summary: The care provider attempted to amend the care arrangements for Mr X as his needs changed but could not reach agreement. The care provider gave notice on the terms stipulated in the contract and responded to the subsequent complaint.

  • Midas Care Limited (18 017 885)

    Statement Not upheld Domiciliary care 29-May-2019

    Summary: Mr C complains the care provider failed to provide appropriate care for his father between April 2018 and May 2018. The Ombudsman has discontinued his consideration of the complaint at the request of Mr C, as the care provider has agreed to provide an acceptable remedy.

  • Northumberland Council (17 012 868)

    Statement Not upheld Domiciliary care 29-May-2019

    Summary: Mr X complained that the Council failed to properly communicate with him and failed to investigate a safeguarding referral about his brother, Mr P. However, he has now decided to withdraw his complaint. The Council has taken action that he is content with and he feels his brother's interests are now being properly addressed.

  • Westminster City Council (18 013 814)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 20-May-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains about poor homecare provided by Healthvision (UK) Ltd on the Council's behalf, causing him distress. The Council and Healthvision (UK) Ltd accept there was some fault in some of the home visits. There was also a failure to keep daily record sheets and to respond to two emailed complaints. The Council will apologise for the failure to respond to the complaints and take whatever action is necessary to ensure daily records are kept. There was no fault in the other matters complained of.

  • Essence Homecare Limited (18 012 559)

    Statement Not upheld Domiciliary care 15-May-2019

    Summary: Mrs X complained about the actions of two members of staff from the Care Provider. I have discontinued my investigation. The injustice Mrs X experienced is not significant enough to justify further investigation into her complaint. In any event, it is unlikely further investigation would result in a different outcome because the Care Provider has deregistered and no longer provides a service.

  • My Life (Carewatch) Limited (18 007 848)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 09-May-2019

    Summary: Mrs X complains about the level of care provided to her father and, in particular, frequently missed visits. The care provider is at fault for missing calls. The caused avoidable distress to family members. It has agreed to pay Mrs X £250 for the avoidable distress caused and to waive outstanding fees of £181.

  • Halton Borough Council (17 018 882)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 07-May-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains that the Council wrongly assessed Mrs Y's finances, failed to provide adaptations and to deal effectively with his complaints about this. It also continued to provide carers after they caused injury to Mrs Y. He says this caused much anxiety, later assessments were incorrect and Mrs Y was trapped in the house and had to pay privately for adaptations. The Ombudsman found the Council was at fault in the way it dealt with Mrs Y's finances and the quality of care it provided. It has already remedied the injustice.