Summary: Mr X complains about the actions of Bamfield Lodge following the death of his late mother, Mrs Y. The care provider has already upheld some parts of Mr X’s complaint and provided a remedy. We do not find any further fault and the remedy already provided is proportionate.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains Bamfield Lodge of Barchester Healthcare provided poor support to him and his family after his mother, Mrs Y, died.
2. He says it caused him and his family distress and upset. He wants the Care Provider to make service improvements to prevent a recurrence of fault and provide him with a financial remedy for the injustice caused.

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. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have investigated the complaints made about the care provider’s handling of Mrs Y’s belongings and its contact with the family after her death.
7. I have not investigated the family’s general concerns about the care provided to Mrs Y whilst at Bamfield Lodge. This is because the complaint made to the care provider is about its actions following the death of Mrs Y. There is no evidence the family has complained about the quality of the care provided to Mrs Y whilst resident at the home and so this is premature for us to consider for the reasons explained in paragraph four of this decision.
8. I have not investigated the complaint about the care provider’s alleged failure to provide a full and timely response to the family’s request for Mrs Y’s care records. In our view, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) would be better placed to consider such issues.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Care Provider as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. Mr X and the Care Provider had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

11. Mrs Y lived in Bamfield Lodge where she received residential care to meet her assessed care and support needs. After falling ill in 2025, Mrs Y sadly passed away in hospital. Her family raised complaints with the care provider about the actions it took following Mrs Y’s death. I will summarise those issues below:
• The family wrote to senior management on 3 April 2025 to complain that staff had not offered any condolences following the death of Mrs Y.
• The collection of Mrs Y’s belongings was disorganised and upsetting because staff from the home had packed items along with rubbish and a leaking bottle which caused damage to paperwork and photographs.
• The family reported that some items were missing, or possibly stolen, including a family-owned wheelchair, a purse and three gold rings. Some items of Mrs Y’s clothing were also missing.
12. On 8 April 2025 the care provider wrote to the family’s solicitor to ask for completion of the relevant forms needed to process a refund for the April 2025 fees already paid by direct debit. The care provider says it contacted the solicitor because they were the appointee who signed the original contract for Mrs Y.
13. The care provider acknowledged the complaint on 11 April and said it aimed to offer a full response within 20 working days.
14. On 8 May 2025 Mrs Y’s family raised some additional concerns:
• The care provider had charged for another month of care fees. This was despite the death of Mrs Y and the end of her residency at the home.
• The care provider has not shown any sensitivity during these difficult times.
15. The care provider responded on 19 May 2025. In summary, it said:
• Before her admission to hospital, Mrs Y was behaving as usual before suddenly experiencing severe abdominal pain. Staff immediately called for an ambulance which arrived approximately 30 minutes later. Staff called Mrs Y’s family but had limited information to relay about Mrs Y’s condition.
• The care provider arranged for a sympathy card to be sent to the family two days after Mrs Y’s death. Staff were “very fond” of Mrs Y, and the care provider was therefore disappointed to hear the family’s view that the home lacked compassion in their correspondence. The care provider apologised for the upset this caused and spoke to the manager to discuss the importance of effective and compassionate communication.
• The care provider apologised for the family’s experiences during their visit to collect Mrs Y’s belongings and for the spillage of water. The care provider spoke with the team to remind them of the care expected when dealing with a resident’s belongings and that liquids should always be transferred into suitable containers.
• Regrettably staff could not locate Mrs Y’s wheelchair before the family’s visit. Since the visit, the care provider discovered that staff had moved the wheelchair to a storage area whilst staff cleaned Mrs Y’s room. As the wheelchair was not labelled and not added to Mrs Y’s inventory, it was not identified as belonging to Mrs Y and therefore not returned to her room. Staff inspected the wheelchair whilst in storage and found it to be “below current safety standards” and arranged for its disposal. The care provider offered £300 as “a gesture of good will”.
• Staff do not recall seeing Mrs Y with a purse during her time at the home, however they did locate Mrs Y’s bank card on the floor of her room which they placed into a secure cabinet and later returned to relatives. The care provider has asked staff to complete a thorough search of the home for the purse. The care provider has asked staff to remind families to label any belongings brought into the home and for staff to check that any such labels do not become detached or faded over time.
• In response to the complaint about the care fees, the provider noted that Mrs Y paid her fees by direct debit collected on the first day of each month. Before a payment is changed, the provider must notify the bank with five working days’ notice. As Mrs Y sadly died towards the end of a month, it was not possible to make any such changes before the direct debit left her account on the first day of the following month.
• The provider reconciled Mrs Y’s account and raised a credit to reflect the date her residency ended, including the contracted “7 days after death” service fee. The provider says it notified Mrs Y’s solicitor of the process but acknowledged it did not also convey this to the family for them to be aware of the timescales for the refund.
16. The family responded to the care provider to express its strong disagreement with the complaint findings. It said the provider had failed to respond to the complaint about Mrs Y’s missing gold rings and that the refund of the care fees remained outstanding seven weeks after Mrs Y’s death. The family said it was considering legal action against the care provider.
17. The care provider contacted the family and offered to arrange a phone call to discuss any outstanding concerns. As the family said their intention was to escalate matters to an external party, the care provider closed the complaint pending further contact from the family’s representatives.
18. As the family had not received the refund for the April 2025 fees paid, it raised a claim directly with Mrs Y’s bank. This resulted in a refund at the end of June 2025. Around the same time, the care provider also received the signed finance forms back and this resulted in a further refund for £3,939.75 which covered:
• Payment towards the wheelchair and cushion
• Refundable deposit
• Seven days’ post-death fees
• A waived sundry charge
19. Dissatisfied with the provider’s response, Mr X complained to the Ombudsman.

Was there fault causing injustice in the actions of the care provider?

20. The care provider has already acknowledged some areas of fault in the way it handled matters after the death of Mrs Y. As its complaint response sets out, the care provider acknowledges the following:
• The provider did not follow up with the family and/or their solicitor when the refund forms were not completed and returned in April 2025. However, I note that the matter was brought to the family’s attention on 19 May. From that point, responsibility rested with the family to liaise with their solicitor to secure and return the signed forms. The provider has acknowledged and apologised for its oversight in not following this up before 19 May 2025. I consider the apology is a proportionate remedy for the limited injustice arising from the administrative error.
• Staff did not record Mrs Y’s wheelchair on her inventory when she moved into the home. As a result, staff placed the wheelchair in storage and later disposed of it after concluding it was not fit for purpose. The provider has acknowledged the inventory error, apologised, and made a goodwill payment. As we cannot assess the wheelchair’s condition or value, I cannot determine any exact financial loss. I also note that the family did not label the wheelchair, which was their responsibility and contributed to the loss. Taking these factors into account, I am satisfied that the provider’s remedial action is proportionate for the injustice caused by the failure to include the wheelchair on Mrs Y’s inventory.
• The care provider delayed when responding to the family’s complaint. It says the delay was due to staff absence. The complaint response was 13 working days overdue, which the provider has apologised for. This is a proportionate remedy for this delay, and I do not recommend anything further.
21. In addition to the points of complaint already upheld by the care provider, Mr X raised concerns about the loss of some of Mrs Y’s valuables which he said the provider did not address. This includes:
• The loss of Mrs Y’s purse. In my view, it is not possible to determine what happened to Mrs Y’s purse. The family suggested that staff may have taken it; however, the Ombudsman cannot make findings on criminal matters such as theft. The provider conducted a thorough search of the care home to locate the purse, but this was unsuccessful. Beyond the scope of a criminal investigation, there are no further remedial actions the Ombudsman could recommend.
• The loss of Mrs Y’s gold rings. The provider did not address this issue in its complaint response and has since apologised for the omission. We made enquiries to establish what investigation the provider has undertaken to locate the rings. The provider supplied a copy of the ‘Transfer Information Form’, which staff completed when they handed Mrs Y’s care to the paramedics who transferred her to hospital. The contemporaneous record states that Mrs Y was wearing “3 gold rings” at the time of transfer. On the balance of probabilities, and having considered the available evidence, I find it more likely than not that Mrs Y left the home still wearing her jewellery. In light of this, I do not consider that there is any further remedy to recommend.
22. For the reasons explained above, there is fault causing injustice in some parts of Mr X’s complaint. However, we find the remedial action already provided is proportionate and so we do not recommend anything further.

Back to top

Decision

23. I find fault causing injustice which the care provider has already provided a remedy for. We do not recommend any further remedial action.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman