Summary: Mr X complained about the Care Provider’s management of his great aunt’s finances. We propose not to investigate this complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault in the Care Provider’s actions. Mr X has involved the police, and they are best placed to consider whether a crime has taken place.

The complaint

1. Mrs Z lives in a care home. Mr X (Mrs Z’s great nephew) and Mrs Y (Mrs Z’s niece) complained about the Care Provider, saying it holds no record of money the family has been sending for Mrs Z’s expenses since 2011. They are concerned Mrs Z’s money has been stolen, and they are not satisfied with the Care Provider’s assertion it cannot investigate what happened before April 2017.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information Mr X provided when he complained.
4. I considered Mr X’s comments on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mrs Z lives in a care home run by Sanctuary Care (the Care Provider). Mrs Y, her niece, has been giving money to the care home since 2011 for Mrs Z’s personal expenses. Between 2011 and 2017 the care home changed providers twice. The Care Provider began managing the home in April 2017.
6. In 2019, Mrs Y asked the Care Provider for information about how the money had been spent. The Care Provider sent a summary of the income and outgoings from Mrs Z’s personal expenses account from 2017 to 2019. There were three deposits recorded during this time, amounting to £180. This matches the records Mr X and Mrs Y have kept, which they provided to the Ombudsman. Outgoings for toiletries, chiropody and hairdressing were recorded, of values up to £11.25 for any one transaction.
7. Mr X and Mrs Y complained about the lack of records before 2017. The deposits they made between 2011 and 2017 amounted to around £4,000. The Care Provider explained during complaints responses that it did not hold records from the periods before it took over management of the home.
8. There is nothing in the information I have seen that leads me to believe we would find fault in the Care Provider’s actions if we investigated this complaint. The records from 2017 to 2019 reflect those provided by Mr X and Mrs Y, and we cannot say now what happened before April 2017. It was open to Mrs Y to seek information about Mrs Z’s expenditure at an earlier date, between 2011 and 2017, had she wished to do so. The records for that period are no longer available as two previous care providers have been dissolved. We could not say how the money was spent, and nothing leads me to believe we could conclude the money was not spent on Mrs Z’s personal expenses.
9. Mr X has reported the issue to the police because he and Mrs Y are concerned Mrs Z’s money has been stolen. We make decisions on the balance of probabilities, whereas the police apply the higher legal threshold of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. However, it is not possible for us to say, on the balance of probabilities, what happened in this case. The police are best placed to consider the evidence and decide whether a crime has taken place. Mr X told us the police had concluded a crime had taken place. Mr X and Mrs Y can pursue the individual who committed a crime via the courts. We cannot make recommendations to individuals, and it is unlikely we would find the Care Provider responsible for a crime committed by a member of its staff.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault and the police are best placed to consider whether a crime has taken place.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman