Summary: Mrs X complained about many issues relating to the Care Provider’s management of her late parents (Mr and Mrs Y’s) care in one of its residential care homes. Some of the complaints are late. An insurance or court claim for loss or damage to valuables would be a more appropriate way for Mrs X to pursue compensation. The injustice to Mrs X from the other matters she complains of is not significant enough for us to investigate the matters. Therefore, we will not investigate Mrs X’s complaints.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Care Provider's actions towards her and her late parents, Mr and Mrs Y. In particular, she complained that:
• the Care Provider’s handling of an incident when Mr Y visited Mrs Y in her room was poor;
• Mr Y’s personal care was poor and the Care Provider failed to take proper care of some of Mr and Mrs Y’s belongings and of Mrs Y’s room. She says this caused avoidable distress and the loss and damage of valuable items;
• from early 2024, the Care Provider refused to compensate Mrs X for the value of lost or damaged jewellery, which was part of her inheritance. While the Care Provider has now offered a payment for one valuable item, it still refuses to reimburse her for two others. This has caused Mrs X a loss of around £2,150;
• the Care Provider failed to act on her reports of witnessing a care worker bullying other residents;
• the Care Provider failed to inform Mrs X about its policy on gifts for staff before she sent two staff gifts with a financial value. The Care Provider then required the staff to give up the gifts, but did not tell Mrs X and returned them to another relative rather than to Mrs X. This caused Mrs X significant distress; and
• the Care Provider’s communication with Mrs X, including that related to finances following Mr Y’s death and to complaint handling, was poor.
2. Mrs X would like compensation for the loss of jewellery and an independent investigation of the Care Provider’s actions.

Back to top

The Ombudsmen’s role and powers

3. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and Health Service Ombudsman have the power to jointly consider complaints about health and social care. (Local Government Act 1974, section 33ZA, as amended, and Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 18ZA).
4. We may investigate complaints made on behalf of someone else if they have given their consent. We may also investigate a complaint on behalf of someone who cannot authorise someone to act for them, if we consider them to be a suitable representative. (Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 9(3) and Local Government Act 1974, sections 26A and 34C, as amended)
5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something an organisation has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended, and Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 9(4).)
6. 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 would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the bodies, or
• there is another body better placed to consider the complaint, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.
   

(Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 3(2) and Local Government Act 1974, section 34B(8) and (9))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. Mr Y paid for his own social care throughout his stay in the Care Provider’s home. Mrs Y paid for her own care in the Care Provider’s home until the end of April 2024. From then, the NHS funded Mrs Y’s care there. This is why the Ombudsmen are considering this complaint jointly.
8. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Care Provider, as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Mrs X has had an opportunity to comment on a draft version of this decision. I considered her comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Matters which are late

10. Mrs X was aware of the following matters for more than 12 months before complaining to us about them in April 2025.
• The Care Provider’s handling of an incident when Mr Y visited Mrs Y in her room.
• Mr Y’s personal care, the condition of Mrs Y’s room, and care of Mr and Mrs Y’s clothing, bedding and valuables.
• The loss of or damage to valuables and the Care Provider’s refusal to compensate Mrs X for the loss of Mrs Y’s jewellery.
• The Care Provider’s response to Mrs X’s reports of a staff member bullying other residents.
11. This means these parts of the complaint are late. There are no good reasons for us to investigate these matters now. In reaching this conclusion, I took the following into account.
• Mrs X has told us she: has had many bereavements since April 2025; cares for a relative who has a serious health condition; has a serious health condition herself; and is the executor of her parents’ wills.
• The bereavements are likely to have taken an emotional toll on Mrs X and I note the significant impact of her health condition. Her caring and executor duties are likely to take up a lot of time and energy. However, these issues have not stopped Mrs X complaining to the Care Provider and other organisations. Therefore, I consider Mrs X could have complained to us sooner.
• The Care Provider should still have Mr and Mrs Y’s care plans and care records. However, it is unlikely those records will contain enough information for us to decide whether the Home’s actions amounted to faults or whether Mr and Mrs Y suffered a significant injustice as a result. Even if we investigated and found they had suffered an injustice, we would not be able to recommend a remedy for them as they are deceased.
• Mrs X values Mrs Y’s lost jewellery at around £2,150. She considers the Care Provider responsible for the loss and for reimbursing her for the loss. The Care Provider has denied responsibility for the loss since January 2024. Mrs X could make a claim against the Care Provider’s insurance if she considers it should be held responsible for the loss of the jewellery. If the insurance claim is rejected, she could take the matter to court.
• Mrs X says the Care Provider’s home damaged Mr Y’s watch, worth about £1,000, by mistakenly putting it in the laundry. The Care Provider has recently offered Mrs X £1,000 as a goodwill payment. If Mrs X considers this is not an adequate remedy for the damaged watch, she could make a claim against the Care Provider’s insurance. If the insurance claim is rejected, she could take the matter to court.
• The Care Provider still says it is not legally responsible for the loss of the jewellery. It has an inventory of Mrs Y’s belongings which does not include the jewellery. For one of the items, there is a dispute about whether it went missing in hospital or in the Care Provider’s home, although Mrs X says she remembers Mrs Y wearing it after she returned from hospital. The police have not been able to establish what happened to the lost jewellery. In these circumstances, an investigation by us would not have a realistic prospect of establishing what happened to the jewellery and who was responsible for the loss.
• If the court finds the Care Provider legally liable for any loss, it may order a payment of compensation. We cannot make findings of legal liability and can only make recommendations. The court is therefore better placed to provide the outcome Mrs X seeks, if that is something she is entitled to.

The Care Provider’s actions in response to gifts to staff

12. Mrs Y wanted to thank some of the home’s staff by providing gifts of a financial value. Mrs X organised this. When the gifts arrived at the Care Provider’s home, the home’s management told the staff they must not keep the gifts. The Care Provider did not tell Mrs X. When a relative heard about this, they told Mrs X and went to the home to collect the gifts. Mrs X was distressed that the Care Provider did not tell the family earlier about its gift policy and that it returned the gifts to a relative, rather than direct to her. She found the situation particularly upsetting as it had happened soon after her father’s funeral.
13. While noting this was an upsetting incident for Mrs X, my view is that we should not investigate this part of the complaint. This is because:
• it is unlikely we would find fault in the Care Provider having a policy that staff cannot accept gifts from residents and their families. This is a common policy among care homes to prevent vulnerable residents being exploited and staff from being suspected of impropriety; and
• the distress to Mrs X from any poor communication about this policy is not a significant enough injustice to justify our involvement.

The Care Provider’s communication

14. Mrs X says that, following Mr Y’s death, the Care Provider:
• failed to offer its condolences to her;
• incorrectly stated there was a debt on Mr Y’s account; and
• delayed reimbursing money that had been set aside for incidental expenses.
15. Mrs X also says the Care Provider included inaccurate statements about Mr Y’s health conditions in its response to her complaint.
16. The Care Provider corrected the financial information and reimbursed Mr Y’s unused money soon after Mrs X told it about these problems. An investigation by the Ombudsmen would not achieve more for Mrs X.
17. It would have been very upsetting for Mrs X not to receive condolences from the Care Provider after her father died, and to see what she considers incorrect references to Mr Y’s conditions in the complaint response. However, the injustice to Mrs X from these matters is not enough to justify an investigation by the Ombudsmen.

Back to top

Decision

18. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaints. Some of the complaints are late and there are no good reasons for us to investigate them now. Mrs X could have made an insurance or court claim if she wanted to pursue compensation for the missing valuables. The court is better placed to provide the financial redress Mrs X seeks for the valuables, if that is something she is entitled to. The injustice from the Care Provider’s communication and actions relating to staff gifts is not sufficient for us to investigate these issues.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman