Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about missing items in a care home. The substantive matter is best considered by the small claims court, and it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaint-handling in isolation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about how the Care Provider handled her complaint relating to her mother’s (Mrs Y’s) missing items. Her concerns included failure to follow through with an offer of compensation, delays, poor communication and giving misleading information. She said the matter has caused distress to both her and Mrs Y, as well as inconvenience and a financial detriment of £8,000. She wanted apologies, compensation, service improvements and staff training.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a care provider has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mrs X complained to the Care Provider about items that had gone missing from the care home her mother resided in. She says the items were worth £8,000.
8. Mrs X says the Care Provider agreed to pay compensation, then did not do so and did not let her communicate directly with its insurers. She says the Care Provider’s handling of her complaint has been poor, and the main concern she wished to bring to the Ombudsman was complaint-handling.
9. The substantive matter in this case is the issue of missing items. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to assess economic losses, and where a person’s main aim is compensation for missing or damaged items, we will signpost them to the courts. The small claims process is relatively straightforward. There is a sliding scale of fees relative to the amount sought, and those fees can be sought from the Care Provider if Mrs X is successful in her claim. It is not necessary to have legal representation to use the process. There is not a reason in this case for us to consider the matter instead.
10. In any event, this central element of the complaint would also now be late as the items allegedly went missing in 2022.
11. It is not a good use of public resources for us to investigate complaint-handling alone when we are not investigating the substantive matter. We will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because the substantive matter is for the courts, and it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaint-handling in isolation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman