Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the care provider not including her late mother Mrs Y’s wedding ring on her property inventory, and about the loss of the ring. There is not enough evidence the care provider’s inventory error led to the ring’s loss and the upset that caused Mrs X. There is no different outcome an investigation by us would achieve. It would be reasonable for Mrs X to pursue the legal liability finding she seeks against the care provider by claiming against its insurers and taking the matter to court.

The complaint

1. Mrs X is Mrs Y’s daughter. Mrs Y was a resident of one of the care provider’s care homes until her death in spring 2024. Mrs X complains the care home:
1. failed to list Mrs Y’s wedding ring in her inventory of possessions;
2. lost Mrs Y’s ring, which she had while at the home.
2. Mrs X says she has been caused upset by the loss of a ring with significant sentimental and financial value, which she can no longer give to her daughter. She wants financial compensation for the value of the ring, to show the care home accepts responsibility for its loss.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about adult social care providers and decide whether their actions have caused an injustice, or could have caused injustice, to the person making the complaint. I have used the term fault to describe such actions. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 34B and 34C)
4. 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))

5. 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

6. I considered information from Mrs X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. We expect care providers to keep accurate inventories of residents’ personal possessions. The care provider acknowledges Mrs Y’s wedding ring was not listed as one of her possessions. It says it has changed its processes to try to prevent it happening again. But even if we were to investigate this issue, we could not find the ring not being listed led to it going missing. There is not enough evidence the care provider’s inventory error directly caused the ring’s loss.
8. The care provider says it searched the home and its safe once Mrs X reported the ring missing. We could never find out what happened to the ring. There is no further information about its location which would be available to an investigation by us so we could not add to the care provider’s investigation. We could not find whether the care provider is responsible for the ring’s loss, so cannot say the understandable upset its loss has caused Mrs X was due to any actions or inactions of the care provider. It is unlikely an investigation by us would lead to any different outcome for Mrs X so we will not do so.
9. The outcome Mrs X wants is for the care provider to be held accountable for the loss of Mrs Y’s ring by paying her its current value. If Mrs X believes the ring was stolen rather than misplaced, she should report this to the police. If she believes the care provider is liable for the ring’s loss, she may wish to make a claim against the provider’s insurers. If they deny liability, Mrs X may seek a legal liability finding in court. It would be reasonable for her to do this as liability for property loss is a legal matter for a court to decide. We cannot make such liability findings so an Ombudsman investigation would not be appropriate. It would also be reasonable for Mrs X to pursue a liability finding at court because it can issue binding rulings on the parties whereas we can only issue recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence that the inventory issue led to the ring’s loss and the upset this caused to her; and
• we cannot determine the care provider is responsible for the ring’s loss, so there is no different outcome an Ombudsman investigation would achieve; and
• it would be reasonable for her to pursue the legal liability finding she seeks against the care provider by claiming against its insurers and taking the matter to court, if required.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman