WT UK Opco 4 (22 002 037)
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the loss of
Ms Y’s jewellery. This is because the Care Provider has agreed to pay Ms Y £300 to acknowledge the uncertainty caused by its failure to log items out of its safe when returning these to the family.
The complaint
- Ms X complains on behalf of her mother-in-law, Ms Y. Ms X says Ms Y’s jewellery has gone missing whist she has been living in a care home managed by the Care Provider. Ms X says Ms Y has dementia and is vulnerable and the family have found the loss of the jewellery distressing.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- 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 further investigation will lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 34B(8) and (9))
- If an adult social care provider’s actions have caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34H(4))
How I considered this complaint
- I considered information provided by the complainant and the Care Provider.
- I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code and Guidance on Remedies.
My assessment
- The Care Provider has accepted items of Ms Y’s jewellery were placed in its safe in a bag. The Care Provider says that these were handed to the family some time later but staff did not check the contents of the bag when handing it over nor ask the family to sign to acknowledge receipt. The Care Provider says the family did not notify it about the missing items until some time later.
- The Care Provider has acknowledged it was at fault for failing to log the items out of its safe before passing these to the family. The Care Provider says it cannot explain why the items have gone missing or what has happened to them. We have recommended the Care Provider pays the family £300 to acknowledge the distress caused as a result of the uncertainty around the loss of the sentimental items.
- Ms Y’s contract says the Provider is not responsible for the loss of personal items in the home unless it is “negligent” or “fraudulent”. Whilst the Provider has accepted it should have logged items out of its safe this is an administrative error and there is no evidence it was negligent in the way it dealt with the items which had been placed in a safe. Ms Y wore other items of jewellery and there is no evidence that the Provider has acted fraudulently or with negligence in the way it handled these items. Therefore, we cannot say that the Provider is directly responsible for the loss of the items.
Agreed action
- The Care Provider has agreed to pay Ms Y £300 to acknowledge the distress caused by the uncertainty around the loss of her jewellery. The Care Provider should arrange payment within four weeks of our decision.
Final decision
- We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because the Care Provider has agreed to take action to remedy the uncertainty caused by the loss of Ms Y’s jewellery.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman