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.

Residential care

Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Somerset County Council (21 012 954)

    Statement Upheld Residential care 09-May-2022

    Summary: A Care Provider, acting on behalf of the Council, acknowledged failings in the management of Mr Y's care before the involvement of this office, but it failed to offer an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused. There is no evidence to show the Council took appropriate action in response to the events or what action it took to ensure safe effective care provision for other residents similarly affected and for those whom it continues to commission placements.

  • Stoke-on-Trent City Council (21 016 366)

    Statement Not upheld Residential care 08-May-2022

    Summary: There was no failure to offer or provide personal care and showering to Mrs Y. So the Care Home which acted for the Council was not at fault.

  • Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (21 002 687)

    Statement Upheld Residential care 05-May-2022

    Summary: The Council commissioned Mr Y's care so it is at fault for the failings in that care. It is also at fault for the way it dealt with Ms X's complaint about this.

  • Suffolk County Council (21 002 496)

    Statement Upheld Residential care 26-Apr-2022

    Summary: Miss X complained about the poor standard of care provided to her late mother while resident in a care home, arranged and commissioned by the Council. We have found there was fault with some aspects of care and recording practices and the Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Miss X for the injustice caused.

  • Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (21 011 478)

    Statement Upheld Residential care 20-Apr-2022

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's charges for his late mother's care, that the Council did not provide adequate care and it falsified its records, causing him distress. We find the Council at fault on its charges, but we are satisfied with the actions already taken to remedy this. We have decided to discontinue our investigation on the remaining complaints because they are out of time and further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

  • Leicestershire County Council (20 010 675)

    Statement Upheld Residential care 18-Apr-2022

    Summary: Mrs Y complained about the quality of care provided to Mr Y by Kibworth Court Residential Home, on behalf of the Council, and the Council's response to, and investigation of, her concerns about his care. We have found fault by Kibworth Court in failing to keep accurate records, and properly assess Mr Y's skin condition, causing injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy Kibworth Court's faults by apologising to Mrs Y and making a payment to reflect her distress, and providing evidence of the action taken to improve Kibworth Court's service.

  • Chase House Limited (21 013 934)

    Statement Not upheld Residential care 18-Apr-2022

    Summary: We did not uphold complaints about the late Mrs Y's care at the end of her life. We were satisfied the Care Provider offered appropriate care around eating and drinking, obtaining health care and communicated well with the family.

  • Saima Raja AKA Braemar Care Centre (21 018 066)

    Statement Upheld Residential care 11-Apr-2022

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Care Provider refusing to issue a refund. This is because the Care Provider has now issued the refund. This remedies the claimed injustice and an investigation could not achieve anything more.

  • Highlands Borders Care Home Limited (21 018 500)

    Statement Upheld Residential care 10-Apr-2022

    Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the quality of care at a care home. This is because the Care Provider has agreed to take action we recommended to remedy the injustice to Mrs X.

  • Aegis Residential Care Homes Limited (21 011 399)

    Statement Upheld Residential care 10-Apr-2022

    Summary: Mr C complains the Care Provider failed to keep his late mother safe causing a harmful impact on her health and distress to her family. We have found fault by the Care Provider in failing to ensure a protocol put in place was both adequate and robustly followed but consider the agreed action of an apology and payment provides a suitable remedy.