Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Care Provider’s Care Home losing his mother, Mrs Y’s, items and not meeting her care needs. This is because we would not be able to add to the Care Provider's investigation, we would not be able to achieve the outcome Mr X wants and there is another body better placed to consider his complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Care Provider’s Care Home failed to protect his mother, Mrs Y’s, belongings whilst she was a resident there which resulted in them getting lost. He also complained the Care Home neglected his mother’s needs. Mr X said it caused him and the family distress. He wants the Care Home to find the items.

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 impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Care Provider.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs Y was living at the Care Provider’s Care Home. When she first arrived at the Care Home, she had been wearing multiple rings on her fingers. Mr X said during her time at the Care Home, his mother’s rings went missing. He also said items such as his mother’s clothes went missing too.
6. The Care Provider investigated Mr X’s complaint. It was unable to establish how and when the rings went missing but said Mrs Y did sometimes remove her rings. It told Mr X it would continue to search for the rings.
7. In relation to the other missing items, the Care Provider said it had managed to find some of the items. It said it was difficult for staff to monitor Mrs Y’s clothes as Mrs Y’s private care workers would take some of her clothes home to wash. Furthermore, Mrs Y used to enter other residents’ rooms.
8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the missing items. The Care Provider has already investigated the missing items and we would not be able to add to its investigation as we would not be able to establish how, when and where the items went missing. We therefore cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants. It would be better for Mr X to report the matter to the Police and make a claim against the Care Provider’s insurers. If the claim is rejected, Mr X can then take the matter to the courts because they can decide whether the Care Provider was negligent and liable for the loss of items. If the courts conclude the Care Provider is responsible for the loss of items, it could order a payment of compensation.
9. Mr X also said on one occasion, whilst the family were visiting Mrs Y in the Care Home, they noticed staff had not given Mrs Y her lunch. The Care Provider accepted it had made an error which resulted in Mrs Y not having her lunch delivered. It said staff rectified the matter as soon as they became aware of it and apologised to Mrs Y/family.
10. We will also not investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint. This is because the Care Provider accepted fault and apologised to Mrs Y/family which was appropriate. We would not be able to add to the Care Provider’s investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we would not be able to add to the Care Provider's investigation, we would not be able to achieve the outcome he wants and there is another body better placed to consider his complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman