Domiciliary care


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Allied Healthcare Limited (17 000 493)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Domiciliary care 11-May-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman has no power to investigate this complaint as the care complained about was not arranged privately.

  • Blakehill Healthcare Limited (17 000 191)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Domiciliary care 11-May-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A's complaint about the Care Provider's response to his compensation claim. This is because this is a complaint about negligence which is a legal matter for the courts to consider and decide.

  • Wolverhampton City Council (17 000 606)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Domiciliary care 10-May-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that a social worker was rude to the complainant. This is because he cannot add to the Council's response.

  • Caremark Bromley (16 018 132)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 08-May-2017

    Summary: There was fault by the Care Provider in its home care service to Mr A: Carer X accepted a gift and behaved inappropriately by taking petrol money, discussing personal problems and providing care to Mrs A when there was no care plan or contract for her. The Care Provider did not liaise with the local authority to report concerns about the care package. The Care Provider has waived outstanding invoices and apologised and this is an appropriate remedy for the injustice.

  • West Sussex County Council (16 012 243)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 08-May-2017

    Summary: there is no evidence Council officers misinformed Mrs X about charges for a care package it arranged following her discharge from hospital. The Council did send Mrs X an incorrect invoice but put this right when Mrs X brought the error to its attention.

  • London Borough of Ealing (16 013 418)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 26-Apr-2017

    Summary: There was fault in the actions of a care provider in some aspects of the home care provided to Mr C. This included failing to administer medication properly and failing to keep proper records. There is no fault in the Council's systems to monitor care quality or commission care. The Council has agreed to apologise and make payments to Mr C and his sister. It will also work with the care provider to address the issues identified.

  • Rosemont Care Limited (16 010 830)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 24-Apr-2017

    Summary: There were problems with the care provided by Rosemont Care for Miss K's father. It has offered remedies for some of the problems. But it has not offered a remedy to Miss K for the impact they had on her. It needs to do so.

  • Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (16 009 023)

    Statement Not upheld Domiciliary care 24-Apr-2017

    Summary: I have discontinued the investigation into this complaint as the Council has not had an opportunity to investigate and reply to it.

  • Westminster Homecare Limited (16 007 818)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 21-Apr-2017

    Summary: Mrs X complains that the domiciliary care given to her great aunt Ms T has been repeatedly 'inadequate and dangerous.' The care provider is at fault and must ensure it complies with the relevant regulations.

  • Hertfordshire County Council (16 014 500)

    Statement Upheld Domiciliary care 19-Apr-2017

    Summary: The Council accepts there were failings in the care provided to Mr D by its care provider. It has waived £969.64 and has now offered to waive a further £250. This is enough to remedy the injustice caused to Mr D.

;