Summary: Miss X complains the care provider lost or damaged her mother’s possessions. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. This is because it is unlikely we could add anything to the care provider’s response and it is reasonable for Miss X to use the legal remedy available to her.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Miss X, complains the care provider lost or damaged items belonging to her mother (Mrs Y).

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about adult social care providers. 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 could add to any previous investigation by the care provider, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, sections 34B(8) and (9))

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered Miss X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the information she provided. I also gave Miss X the opportunity to comment on a draft statement before reaching a final decision on her complaint.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mrs Y was a resident of the care provider. After she moved to a different care provider Miss X complained about:
• The care provider packing clean clothes with dirty items.
• Discolouring of some of Mrs Y’s clothes.
• A missing jacket, skirt, handbag, keys, and hair rollers.
• The care provider had poorly packed a painting which meant the frame had been damaged.
• The care provider had returned two tubes of toothpaste. Miss X was therefore concerned Mrs Y’s teeth had not been cleaned.
• Damage to Mrs Y’s spectacles.
6. In its response to Miss X’s complaint the care provider said:
• It was surprised its staff had packed dirty clothes with clean items and upheld this part of her complaint.
• Clothes were washed following the instructions supplied.
• Mrs Y often did not wear her glasses and regularly left them in different places. They had been found but a lens and screw were missing. They had therefore been left with the opticians to repair.
• There was no record of Mrs Y wearing a skirt and the jacket could not be found. There was also no record of Mrs Y having a set of keys, but her handbag and hair rollers had been found.
• Mrs Y’s oral hygiene needs had been met and documented.
• Staff did everything they could to protect the painting when it was packed, and it was sorry to hear of the damage.
7. Our role is to look for administrative fault. We do not investigate all the complaints we receive. In deciding whether to investigate we need to consider what an investigation could achieve and what other options are available to the person complaining.
8. I understand how upset Miss X is about the missing and damaged items. But if we were to investigate, it is unlikely we could add anything to the care provider’s response. I do not think there is a realistic prospect of us finding out what happened to the missing or damaged items or being able to say the care provider was responsible. The care provider has apologised for packing clean and dirty clothes together and has said Mrs Y’s teeth were cleaned as required. I do not believe we could add anything more to the care provider’s response.
9. Miss X can also claim against the care provider’s insurance if she feels the care provider is responsible for losing or damaging Mrs Y’s possessions. If her claim was rejected, she could take the matter to court, and I see no reason she should not do this.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. This is because it is unlikely we could add anything to the care provider’s response and it is reasonable for Miss X to use the legal remedy available to her.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman