Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Care Provider not paying him fully for the value of his wife Mrs X’s property lost during her stay at their care home, or how it dealt with his complaint. It is unlikely investigation would lead to a different outcome. There is not enough evidence of fault in how Care Provider applied the residence contract terms to warrant an investigation. We do not investigate providers’ complaint-handling where we are not investigating the matters which gave rise to the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X’s wife Mrs X has a form of dementia and lived in a care home run by the Care Provider until early 2024. Mr X complains the Care Provider:
1. has failed to refund him for property which was lost or went missing during Mrs X’s stay at the care home;
2. delayed in responding to his complaint.
2. Mr X says the matter has caused him stress and anxiety at an already difficult time. He says he and Mrs X can ill afford the loss of the property, valued at £2,615. Mr X wants the Care Provider to pay him that sum, being the value of the Mrs X’s lost dentures and hearing aid.

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 further investigation will lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 34B(8) and (9))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Mr X and the Care Provider, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. For us to find the Care Provider responsible for refunding Mr X the full value of Mrs X’s property, we would have to determine it was fault by its staff which directly led to its loss. We could not say the Care Provider is liable for the loss of the property, and an investigation would not achieve such a finding or any different outcome here.
7. The Care Provider has acted in line with the residence contract in place for Mrs X when dealing with the matter. The contract states the home’s insurance policy does not cover residents’ possessions unless stored in its safe. Since dentures and hearing aids would need to be on the residents’ person when in use, this would not normally be possible. The contract therefore advises residents to organise personal contents insurance for valuable items not held in the safe, which Mr X did. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Care Provider in how it has applied the contract terms to warrant us investigating.
8. The Care Provider offered Mr X a goodwill gesture payment of £1,000 to settle the matter, which I understand he accepted. If Mr X wishes to now recover any of the further monies from the value of the lost items, he should make a claim on his own insurance policy. We recognise Mr X may not want the premium to increase by making a claim. But the insurance policy’s purpose was specifically to protect Mrs X from loss of property where the home’s insurance did not, as explained in the contract. The premium payable should be reflective of the level of risk of loss or damage to Mrs X’s valuables while being used in a care home setting.
9. Mr X says the Care Provider delayed in replying to his complaint. We do not investigate care providers’ internal complaint-handling in isolation where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint. It is not a good use of our resources to do so. That limitation applies here so we will not investigate this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• it is unlikely investigation would lead to a different outcome; and
• there is not enough evidence of fault in how Care Provider applied the contract terms to warrant an investigation; and
• we do not investigate providers’ complaint-handling where we are not investigating the matters which gave rise to the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman