Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about his mother’s missing jewellery. This is because it is unlikely we could achieve a worthwhile outcome for Mr X. Also, it is reasonable for Mr X to pursue the matter through the courts if he believes the care provider is responsible for the lost items.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains jewellery belonging to his mother (Mrs Y) went missing while she was a resident of the care provider. Mr X wants the care provider to review its processes.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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))

4. 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

5. I considered Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the information he provided.

What happened

6. Mr X complains some of Mrs Y’s jewellery went missing while she was a resident of the care provider. Mrs X passed away. The care provider sent Mr X its response to his complaint and said:
• It was sorry for the missing items;
• It has been through the staff rotas and checked with staff who were present at the time the rings went missing;
• It has told staff the matter had been reported to the Police and the CQC;
• They have not had an issue like this for around 5 years and its policies did not need reviewing given this appeared to be theft;
• Its contract prohibits people bringing in valuable items and it cannot accept responsibility;
• It noted Mr X was happy with the care provided otherwise.

Assessment

7. We will not investigate. This is because it is unlikely we could add anything to the care provider’s response. The issue at the heart of Mr X’s complaint is what happened to the missing jewellery. I do not think that if we were to investigate, there is a realistic prospect of us finding out what happened to the jewellery. The Police are in a much better position than the Ombudsman to investigate allegations of theft – which is not our role.
8. Mr X can, however, claim against the care provider’s insurance if he feels the care provider is responsible for the lost jewellery. If his claim is rejected, he can take the matter to court, and I see no reason he should not do this. The court can decide if the care provider is responsible for the lost items and if it should pay compensation. It can therefore give Mr X an outcome while we cannot.

Back to top

Final decision

9. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because:
• it is unlikely we could achieve a worthwhile outcome for Mr X; and
• it is reasonable for Mr X to use the legal remedy available.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman