Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Care Provider’s staff or missing items which belonged to the complainant’s mother. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation and it is unlikely we could add anything to the response the complainant has already received.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss X, complained to the Care Provider about the actions of its staff when her mother (Mrs Y) passed away. Miss X also complained some of Mrs Y’s possessions were missing and asked for compensation. Mrs Y received residential care funded by the Council, but the Care Provider has responded to Miss X’s complaints.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Care Provider has responded to Miss X’s complaint. It has apologised for the way its staff acted when Mrs Y passed away. It also apologised for not sending a condolences card which would normally be signed by all staff. The Care Provider said it believed it had located an over the table bed and blanket which belonged to Mrs Y. But it could not find a duvet cover and two items of clothing which belonged to Mrs Y.
6. I understand how upset Miss X is about the issues at the heart of her complaint. But the injustice from the missing items is not enough to warrant an investigation. Even if we were to investigate, it is unlikely we could ever say what happened to the missing items. The Care Provider has apologised for the way its staff behaved and it is unlikely we could add anything to its response.
7. Miss X wants compensation for the missing items and so she can make a claim against the Care Provider’s insurance. If her clam was rejected, she could take the matter to court and the process is simple and inexpensive. The Court could then decide if the Care Provider was responsible for the lost items and if it should pay compensation. This is the outcome Miss X wants but is not one we could achieve.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. This is because the injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation and it is unlikely we could add anything to the response Miss X has already received.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman