Recipient

G P Homecare Limited

Pin Request correction

First report 18 Oct 2024•Latest report 18 Oct 2024

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Private and voluntary organisations · Domiciliary care provider. This page brings together reports naming this recipient and response statements clearly connected to concerns raised in those reports.

Reports
1

Naming this recipient

Published responses
100%

Found for named reports

Concerns addressed
1

Across all linked responses

Stated actions
4

Described in responses

Reports over time

Reports over time

Reports naming this recipient by issue year.

Evidence profile

Report topics

Share of this recipient’s reports compared with all other recipients.

100%published responses found
4stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from G P Homecare Limited linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Addressed to “Radis Community Care”, a trading name of G P Homecare Limited.

    West Yorkshire (Western)

    AI-generated summary

    Geoffrey Stuart CHENEY · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Geoffrey Stuart Cheney died by suicide on 16 January 2024 after going home on unescorted leave, securing the door chain, and hanging himself. The principal concern was that an item that could have been used in the hanging was assumed to be irremovable, so no attempt was made to establish whether it could be removed.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to G P Homecare Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to assess whether an item could be removed

    Wider context from the report

    “From the evidence it was clear that there was an assumption that ████████ could not be removed and as a result no attempt was made to see if it was actually possible to have ████████ removed ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Review service-level agreements with housing providers and local authorities to establish clear processes for adaptation-related requests.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We have also reviewed how we can ensure that any concerns about residents in extra care schemes can be followed up and escalated. I have attached a copy of our action plan which sets out details of the action being taken, which includes.”

    Source location

    Response from Radis Community Care
    Page 3 · response
    Published 18 October 2024

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Requests to alter or remove property adaptations must be authorised and acted on by Kirklees Council and its housing arrangements.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “I also note the evidence of ████████, another contract manager for Pinnacle Housing Group that they had not received any written requests to remove the hoists from Mr Cheney's property either from Mr Cheney himself, his family, his social worker, the Council or any other party, and that they would refer any request to and only act on the instruction of the Council. I note that he has not commented on the request being made to the Pinnacle Housing Group caretaker on site.”

    Source location

    Response from Radis Community Care
    Page 2 · response
    Published 18 October 2024

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Property maintenance, repair and alteration at Woodland Court are outside the care provider’s control and remit.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Woodland Court is owned by Kirklees Council and managed on their behalf by Pinnacle Housing Group, who are responsible for all aspects of building maintenance and safety. Residents enter into a tenancy agreement with Pinnacle Housing Group and Radis Community Care has no control over the maintenance or adaptation of the building or individual properties.”

    Source location

    Response from Radis Community Care
    Page 1 · response
    Published 18 October 2024

    Open published response
Back to top

Published response patterns

Compared with other recipients in reports included in PFD Monitor

Describes published response evidence, not performance.

Published responses found

100%
100%All other recipients 58%
0%100%

How actions were described at the time

This respondent
100%
All other recipients
47%25%27%<1%<1%
  • Completed
  • In progress
  • Planned
  • Unclear
  • Partially completed

Statuses reflect what recipients said at the time. PFD Monitor does not verify whether actions happened.

Types of action described in responses

Percentages use all actions described by each group. An action may have more than one type, so percentages do not total 100%.

Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Data last updated 7 September 2026