Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s concerns about how his complaint about his relative’s missing jewellery was handled by the Care Home. This is because we are unlikely to be able to add to the investigation already carried out and because Mr X has a remedy via court.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Care Home’s handling of his complaint about missing jewellery belonging to his relative. He says a staff member told untruths about him and his mental health has been adversely affected.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We do not start an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We investigate complaints about adult social care providers. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the care provider; (Local Government Act 1974, sections 34B(8) and (9))

4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

I considered information provided by the complainant which includes the Care Provider’s responses. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says the Care Home’s handling of his complaint has been flawed. He said a member of staff told lies about another relative taking the jewellery. And that the same member of staff lied about what he is supposed to have said to another resident at the home who he knows through previous acquaintance.
6. The Care Home says it has carried out a physical search for the jewellery and spoken to staff but it has not been able to locate any missing jewellery. It says it is happy to provide information if Mr X wishes to refer the matter to his insurers and/or the police. It also says it has improved its inventory practices as a general service improvement arising from his complaint. Overall, however the Care Provider highlights the contractual terms and conditions that advises residents that the Care Home cannot be held responsible for valuable items brought into the Care Home.
7. With respect to the complaints about the staff member, the Care Home apologises for any inconvenience caused. It explains the staff member’s intention was to try and be helpful.
8. We will not investigate. This is because we are unlikely to be able to add to the investigation already carried out by the Care Home. While the Care Home has reiterated that its contractual terms of admission stress that items are brought inside the home at residents own risk, it has carried out a search, checked its inventory records and spoken to staff. Further, we did not witness the staff member’s interactions with Mr X and could not definitively establish what happened.
9. There is another reason we will not investigate. Mr X’s complaint is effectively that the Care Home has been negligent. Only a court can decide if an organisation has been negligent and so should pay damages. I cannot decide whether the Care Home has been negligent and have no powers to enforce an award of damages. So, I would usually expect someone in Mr X’s position to seek a remedy in the courts, directly or through his insurers. I consider it is not unreasonable to expect Mr X to go to court.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X ’s complaint because we cannot add to the investigation carried out by the Care Home. And it is reasonable to expect Mr X to refer the matter to court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman