Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Care Provider losing her mother, Mrs Y’s, dentures. This is because a further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, we cannot achieve the outcome Ms X wants and there is another body better placed to consider her complaint.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Care Provider’s Care Home provided poor oral care to her mother, Mrs Y, which caused her dentures to go missing. The matter caused Mrs Y and Ms X frustration. Ms X wants the Care Provider to pay for the replacement dentures.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Care Provider.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X said her mother, Mrs Y’s, dentures have been lost at the Care Home in 2024 and again in 2025. She complained to the Care Provider in 2025 and as part of her complaint, she said:
• Mrs Y had removed her dentures and placed them in a tissue on a shelf. Ms X questioned whether staff had discarded them in error;
• she wanted the Care Provider to pay for the replacement costs of the dentures; and
• she was concerned her dentures would go missing again and wanted to know whether the Care Home would make any efforts to ensure they would not go missing again.
6. The Care Provider investigated Ms X’s complaint and said:
• Mrs Y had the mental capacity to make specific decisions about her care and she was able to independently remove her dentures. Although staff monitored Mrs Y and encouraged her to store her dentures properly, she was still able to carry out the task independently. It was therefore not responsible for the loss of the dentures;
• it could not determine how the dentures went missing;
• it could not provide any guarantee that Mrs Y’s dentures would not go missing again however, it said it would include additional checks in Mrs Y’s care plan to increase its efforts to prevent the dentures from going missing again; and
• its insurance did not cover missing dentures and said this information was included in its terms and conditions for residents.
7. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint. This is because we would not be able to establish how Mrs Y’s dentures went missing. Therefore, a further investigation from us would not lead to a different outcome. Subsequently, we cannot achieve the outcome Ms X wants. It would be better for Ms X to take the matter to the courts. The courts can decide whether the Care Provider was liable for the loss of the dentures.
8. In addition, I note the Care Provider said it would increase its efforts to prevent Mrs Y’s dentures from going missing again. This was appropriate.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because a further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, we cannot achieve the outcome she wants and there is another body better placed to consider her complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman