Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about a care home being unable to find and return her late mother’s clothing. This is mainly because we could not add to the previous investigation carried out by the care home. Miss X could reasonably take court action if she wants compensation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained that when her mother, Mrs X, was placed in respite care for the first time, the care home staff did not tell the family that Mrs X’s clothes had to be labelled with her name before she went into care.
2. Miss X said that when Mrs X left respite care, the care home staff could not find and return some of the clothes, which resulted in great financial cost to the family. Miss X also said this experience led to the family not wanting to accept an offer of a nursing home place.
3. Miss X also complained that the care home managers were not present in the home, were uncooperative with the family and did not support their own staff.
4. Sadly, Mrs X has since died.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
6. 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)
7. We may investigate complaints from the person affected by the complaint issues, or from someone else if they have given their consent. If the person affected cannot give their consent, we may investigate a complaint from a person we decide is a suitable representative. (section 26A or 34C, Local Government Act 1974).
8. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered information provided by Miss X.
10. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

11. Mrs X went into the care home for respite care for the first time. Miss X said the family bought new clothes for Mrs X before she went into the care home. Miss X said the care provider did not tell the family that Mrs X’s clothes needed to be labelled with her name before she went into the home. Miss X also said that the family had told the care provider that they would be doing Mrs X’s laundry as she was only due to be in care for a short time.
12. The care provider has said its records show it told Miss X’s father, Mr X, that the clothes needed to be labelled. The provider also said it had no record of being told that the family would deal with the laundry.
13. The care provider also said that some clothing has now been found and returned to the family, but there are still some items missing. The provider also said there has been confusion over which clothing belonged to Mrs X, as Miss X has said some items of clothing were not her mother’s, whereas Mr X said they were hers.
14. The care provider has said it will continue looking for the clothes and has asked Miss X to provide photographs and descriptions of the items to help with identification. The provider has also asked Miss X to provide receipts for the clothes to help with identification and so it can consider reimbursement.
15. The care provider has asked Miss X for more information to help it identify the missing clothes and to consider reimbursement. An investigation by the Ombudsman would be unlikely to achieve more than this.
16. We would also not be able to reach a clear enough view on the points in dispute. Therefore, we will not investigate this element of the complaint as further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
17. Miss X could pursue compensation for the allegedly lost belongings through an insurance claim and, if that does not resolve the matter, she could take court action. So the restriction in paragraph 6 applies here. This is essentially a claim of damage caused by negligence. Questions about whether negligence happened, and liability and compensation for any negligence, are not necessarily straightforward legally. It is more appropriate for the courts than the Ombudsman to consider them. So it would be reasonable for Miss X to go to court if she wants a decision on this point and an insurance claim does not resolve it.
18. Compensation for harm and distress is also more appropriately for a court to decide than for the Ombudsman.
19. On the wider issues regarding management, the Care Quality Commission (CQC) is the statutory regulator of care services. It keeps a register of care providers that meet the fundamental standards of care, inspects care services, and reports its findings. It can also enforce against breaches of fundamental care standards and prosecute offences. Therefore, we will not investigate this element of the complaint as the CQC is better placed to consider this matter.

Back to top

Final decision

20. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about a care home being unable to find and return her late mother’s clothing, because we could not add to the previous investigation carried out by the care home. Miss X could reasonably take court action if she wants compensation. The CQC is better placed to consider the broader matters about the care home management.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman