Summary: Mrs X says the care provider should reimburse the monetary value of her late mother’s wedding ring lost in the care home. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint as Mrs X has not suffered significant personal injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs X (as I shall call the complainant) complains that the care provider did not take her late mother’s (Mrs A’s) wedding ring into safekeeping. She says the loss of the ring caused Mrs A distress and has deprived the family of the opportunity to ensure Mrs A was wearing it when she was buried, as she had wished

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
3. 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
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify the cost of our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information provided by the care provider and Mrs X. I spoke to Mrs X. Both Mrs X and the care provider had the opportunity to comment on an earlier draft statement before I reached a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. The late Mrs A was resident in the Firs care home from November 2019. She had dementia.
6. Mrs X says she visited Mrs A on 6 December and noticed her mother’s wedding ring was missing. She says the staff on duty said Mrs A had been taking her ring on and off the preceding day. They started a search of the care home while Mrs X was there and said they would continue after residents were in bed. The ring was not found.
7. The company director investigated the loss of the ring. She interviewed six members of staff who all said Mrs A used to take off her ring and wrap it in tissue. She told Mrs X they had offered to put the ring away for safekeeping or send it home to Mrs A’s family but she had declined. She said Mrs A had not shown any signs of distress when she was not wearing the ring.
8. Mrs X says Mrs A only started taking her wedding ring off after she lost weight in the care home and was able to remove it. She says the care provider often used to telephone her about other matters so she is surprised the care provider didn’t tell her Mrs A had started taking her ring off. She says Mrs A wouldn’t have understood if staff had suggested they take it for safekeeping.
9. Mrs A died in February 2020.
10. Mrs X asked the care provider to reimburse the family the monetary value of the ring. She said her mother had asked to be buried wearing it and that was not now possible. She said whether her mother seemed distressed about the loss of the ring was irrelevant as it was in her possession when she was admitted and was then lost.
11. The care provider said the company could not be held responsible for the loss of the ring. She expressed regret that the loss was adding to the family’s grief.
12. Mrs X complained to the Ombudsman. She said Mrs A had talked about the loss of the ring to herself and her sister. She said reimbursing the replacement cost of the ring, about £250, would provide some solace.

Analysis

13. Sadly Mrs A has now died and any injustice she suffered cannot be remedied.
14. It was upsetting, of course, for Mrs X and her family when Mrs A’s wedding ring was lost. However, it is not the level of injustice which warrants the continued involvement of the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

15. I have stopped investigating this complaint as there is no significant injustice for Mrs X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman