Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly investigate and address the loss of his wife’s personal belongings while she was in a care home. We cannot say if the care provider acting on the Council's behalf lost the personal belongings and we did not find fault for how it carried out its investigation or addressed the missing items. However the Council was at fault because the care provider did not follow its process for taking inventories, or carry out the actions set out in its complaint responses. This caused Mr X uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X, pay him £100 and take action to prevent the fault occurring again.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to properly investigate and address the loss of his wife’s wedding and engagement rings while she was resident in a care home.
2. Mrs X has since passed away. The Ombudsman cannot remedy any injustice to her, so we are investigating whether any fault caused injustice to Mr X. Mr X said the faults caused him financial loss and distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)
5. When a council commissions another organisation to provide services on its behalf it remains responsible for those services and for the actions of the organisation providing them. The Council commissioned Mrs X’s care from the care provider. So, although we found fault with the actions of the care provider, we have made recommendations to the Council.
6. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered the information provided by Mr X, Mr X’s Member of Parliament, the Council and the care provider.
8. I considered our Guidance on Remedies.
9. I considered comments made by Mr X and the Council on a draft decision before making this final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

10. Mrs X was a resident at a care home for almost three months, until she passed away in hospital.
11. On the day Mrs X arrived at the care home in November 2020, the care provider completed an inventory of her belongings. The inventory noted Mrs X did not arrive with any jewellery.
12. The care provider added a note to the inventory shortly after Mrs X died. It said she had a hearing aid which Mr X did not wish to keep when he arrived to collect her belongings. The care provider had not added the hearing aid to the inventory prior to this note. The note also said Mr X was looking for his wife’s wedding and engagement rings.
13. In early February 2021, Mr X complained to the care provider that Mrs X’s rings were missing. Mr X included a photograph as evidence but it did not show whether the rings were on Mrs X’s hand.
14. The care provider spoke to the member of staff who took Mrs X’s inventory. She confirmed Mrs X did not have any rings on arrival at the home. She also said that she had frequently washed Mrs X’s hands and never saw the rings.
15. The care provider did not uphold Mr X’s complaint that the missing rings were its fault. However it said it would improve its inventory processes in future. It said it would:
• ask staff to work in pairs when admitting someone into the home;
• ask the team leader on duty to check the inventory and sign it; and
• have a family member verify the inventory by signing it.
16. In mid-February 2021, Mr X responded to ask the care provider to make an insurance claim for the rings.
17. Following contact from Mr X, the care provider re-opened its investigation into his complaint. It looked at Mr X’s photos, took further witness statements from staff members and analysed case notes and medical correspondence.
18. Its investigation found there was no evidence of the jewellery being in Mrs X’s possession at any time during her stay. However it identified the following faults;
• it did not admit Mrs X to the care home in accordance with its policies. It had failed to send a ‘Welcome Pack’, which would have given Mr X more information on high value items and insurance; and
• it had been communicating with Mr X about the complaint by email and verbally, which resulted in a lack of clear information at first, about what it had done to investigate the missing rings.
19. In this second complaint response, the care provider said it would make further improvements. This included making sure it would send the Welcome Pack when residents moved in and producing updated records of someone’s belongings when they went into hospital.
20. In mid-April, the care provider asked Mr X for evidence of the value of the rings so it could make an insurance claim. Records show the care provider did not accept liability for the loss of the rings but was willing to make a claim nonetheless. Mr X did not have the information required.
21. As Mr X could not provide the documentation for the care provider to make a claim on his behalf, it gave him its insurer’s details so he could contact them directly. Mr X has not contacted the insurance company as he said this is the responsibility of the care provider.
22. The care provider sent us its updated policy on personal possessions. This policy did not include the improvements to the inventory process the care provider said it would make in its complaint responses.

My findings

Investigation of the missing rings

23. The care provider’s investigation into the missing rings was suitably robust. It interviewed several staff members and took witness statements. It checked relevant records and considered Mr X’s photographs. It ultimately concluded there was no evidence Mrs X had the rings in the care home.
24. The care provider investigated appropriately, and we have found no evidence to show that Mrs X’s rings were in her possession when she went into the care home. The care provider was not at fault for how it investigated the missing rings.

Action to address the missing rings

25. Once the care provider completed its second complaint response, it contacted Mr X shortly after to discuss making an insurance claim. When Mr X said he could not provide the information required to make a claim, the care provider gave him its insurer’s details directly. This was appropriate action to take to address the missing rings. The care provider was not at fault.

Failure to provide information on high value items

26. The care provider accepts it should have provided Mrs X with insurance information for high value belongings in her ‘Welcome Pack’. Its failure to do so was fault. This led to uncertainty for Mr X, as he may have wished to insure his wife’s rings through an insurance policy, or collate evidence of the rings at the time. In its complaint response, the care provider said it would ensure it gives new residents the Welcome Pack. This is an appropriate action to prevent the fault occurring again.

Failure to update inventory

27. The evidence shows Mrs X had a hearing aid added to her belongings during her stay. A hearing aid is a high value item, but the care provider did not amend the inventory to include this. This was fault. While this fault caused no injustice to Mr X, we have made a recommendation to prevent faults like this leading to injustice for others in future.

Failure to make service improvements

28. The care provider’s complaint response said it would improve its inventory process by ensuring a team leader and family member verified and signed inventories and by updating the inventory before a resident went into hospital. The care provider’s updated policy on personal possessions does not include these changes to its practice.
29. When an organisation says it will do something in its complaint response, we expect this action to be carried out. The care provider did not do this, which was fault. The fault did not cause Mr X an injustice but may affect residents and their families in the future if service improvements are not carried out.

Back to top

Agreed actions

30. Where we find fault with an organisation acting on behalf of a council, we make the recommendations to the council.
31. Within one month of the final decision, the Council has agreed to;
• apologise to Mr X; and
• pay Mr X £100 to reflect the avoidable uncertainty he was caused regarding his wife’s rings at an already distressing time.
32. Within three months of the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to provide evidence the care provider updated its personal possessions policy to include that;
• the team leader on duty should check personal possession inventories and sign them;
• a resident’s family member should verify the inventory by signing it; and
• staff should produce updated records of a person’s belongings when they are admitted to hospital.
33. Within three months of the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed it will also demonstrate the care provider has;
• carried out training with all staff regarding these improved processes for inventory of personal belongings; and
• reminded all staff of the importance of updating residents’ inventories when their belongings change during their stay.

Back to top

Final decision

34. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault leading to uncertainty and have recommended a financial remedy. I have also recommended service improvements to prevent faults occurring in future.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman