Summary: We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about the actions of her late mother’s, Mrs C’s, care provider. This is because further investigation by the Ombudsman could not add to the care provider’s response or make a different finding of the kind Ms B wants. It would be reasonable for Ms B to ask the court to consider whether the care provider is liable for Mrs C’s missing jewellery.

The complaint

1. Ms B complained that her late mother’s, Mrs C’s, care provider failed to ensure a member of staff stayed in the room with her when her body was being prepared for removal after she passed away. Ms B says although the care provider has subsequently implemented a Death of a Service user checklist, the failure to ensure someone was with Mrs C after when the undertaker was in the room has compounded to the family’s distress when they found her wedding ring, watch and wedding ring of her deceased daughter were missing.

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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(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 the information and documentation provided by Ms B and the care provider. I sent Ms B a copy of my draft decision and considered her comments on it.

Back to top

What I found

5. Ms B says Mrs C’s family were unable to be with her when she passed away because of the Covid-19 pandemic restrictions. She was distressed to find Mrs C’s rings and watch missing.
6. The care provider explained residents are required to have personal insurance to cover valuable items. It acknowledged the distress caused to the family from the missing items but could offer no explanation for what had happened to them.
7. Ms B says the care provider should have ensured someone was in the room with Mrs C when the undertaker prepared the body for removal.
8. The care provider has explained procedures for staff when a resident passes away and confirmed the nurse on duty documented in Mrs C’s care notes what happened. It says it has now implemented a checklist for staff to complete when a person dies.
9. We could not say what happened to the missing items or say the care provider is liable for them or caused the injustice to Mrs C’s family. The courts are properly the place to consider liability and it would be reasonable for Ms B to ask the court to consider whether the care provider is liable for the missing jewellery.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we cannot say the care provider is liable for the missing items or add to the care provider’s response. It would be reasonable for Ms B to ask the court to consider whether the care provider is liable.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman