Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about her late grandmother’s lost rings. This is because we are unlikely to add to the Care Provider’s own investigation and we cannot determine liability for the loss, as this is a matter for the insurer or the courts.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y was in a care home until her death. Her granddaughter, Miss X, says the Care Provider lost Mrs Y’s rings after her death. She says the provider mishandled the situation by giving conflicting explanations, failing to apologise at first, and not informing the family promptly or appropriately. She says the rings were valuable and had strong sentimental importance. Miss X wants the care home to refund prepaid fees, pay compensation, and give a full account of what happened.

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mrs Y died in the care home, and when Miss X came the next day to collect her possessions, staff told her the rings were missing.
8. Miss X complained to the Care Provider; it investigated and found that staff removed the rings during last offices and likely disposed of them accidentally. It apologised, made service improvements, and offered £500 compensation. Miss X feels this is inadequate.
9. As the homecare Provider has accepted responsibility for the loss, Miss X may choose to pursue a claim directly against the care home or its insurers. Our investigation is unlikely to uncover more than the provider’s account or lead to recovering the rings. We also cannot decide legal liability or order compensation for the value of lost property. A court is best placed to determine negligence, liability, and any financial compensation.
10. While I recognise the distress caused to the family, further investigation by us would be unlikely to achieve a different outcome. The Care Provider has investigated the incident, apologised, offered compensation and introduced service improvements.
11. Miss X also seeks a refund of Mrs Y’s prepaid fees. However, because she did not raise this in her complaint to the Care Provider, we cannot consider it until she has done so and they have had the chance to review and respond.
12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint as we are unlikely to add to the provider’s actions or achieve a different outcome. It is also reasonable for her to pursue the legal route for the remedy she seeks.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. This is because we are unlikely to add to the Care Provider’s own investigation and we cannot determine liability for the loss, as this is a matter for the insurer or the courts.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman