Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint, made on behalf of Mrs Y, about how care home staff dealt with the loss of Mrs Y’s jewellery and changed her carer. Investigation of the jewellery matter would not add to the investigations by the Care Provider and the police nor lead to a different outcome. There is insufficient significant injustice caused by the Care Provider not reporting the jewellery loss to police to warrant us investigating. There is not enough evidence the changes to Mrs Y’s carer, or how the Care Provider changed the carer, caused sufficient significant injustice to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y has lived in a care home run by the Care Provider for several years. Mrs Y’s daughter Mrs X complains the care home:
1. did not notice the loss of some of the Mrs Y’s jewellery;
2. failed to report the matter to the police;
3. moved Mrs Y’s regular carer to another part of the care home without telling the family.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, sections 34B(8) and (9))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. The core issue which led to Mrs X’s complaint was the loss of Mrs Y’s jewellery. The care home staff searched the property in response to its loss. The staff recognised a payment cannot undo the sentimental effects of the jewellery’s loss for Mrs Y and her family but has offered redress through its compensation policy as a goodwill gesture. The police considered Mrs X’s report of the loss but has not taken the matter further. We could not add to the investigations carried out by the care home and the police into the jewellery’s loss. There would be no new or additional evidence available to an investigation by us which would result in the any other outcome. Investigating would not result in a different outcome for Mrs Y or her family here so we will not do so.
6. We recognise Mrs X would have preferred the care home’s staff to report the jewellery’s loss to the police. But Mrs X or Mrs Y’s family were able to report it to the police to seek action, which they subsequently did. There is insufficient injustice to Mrs X or Mrs Y and her family stemming from the care home’s actions here to warrant us investigating.
7. Mrs X describes the care home’s decision to move Mrs Y’s regular carer to different duties as ‘negligent’. This serious allegation implies Mrs Y was not receiving the provision to meet her assessed care needs at the home. We note Mrs X links the change of carer to the loss of Mrs Y’s jewellery because the previous carer knew Mrs Y’s routine and how she removed and replaced it. Even if we were to investigate, we could not determine if the change of carer was the direct cause of the jewellery’s loss. Furthermore, it is for a care home to decide how to deploy its staff, and they may do so without advising residents or families. We understand Mrs X and Mrs Y’s family were upset to find out Mrs Y’s carer had moved to other roles. But the duty on care homes is to meet residents’ care needs. That duty does not extend to a resident having a particular carer in a care home, or staff telling families when their relative’s care worker has changed or will change. Mrs X has not stated any aspects of Mrs Y’s care provision were lacking after the change in carer. There is not enough evidence the Care Provider’s changes to Mrs Y’s provision, or how it changed who provided care, caused such injustice to warrant us investigating this issue.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because:
• investigation of the jewellery matter by us would not add to the investigations by the Care Provider and the police; and
• an investigation would not lead to a different outcome regarding the jewellery; and
• there is insufficient significant injustice to Mrs X, Mrs Y or her family from the Care Provider not reporting the jewellery loss to police to warrant us investigating; and
• there is not enough evidence the changes to Mrs Y’s carer, or in how the Care Provider changed the carer, caused sufficient significant injustice to warrant us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman