Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. We most likely cannot achieve the outcome Mr X would like or add anything to University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS Trust’s investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains on behalf of his deceased son (Mr Y). He says Mr Y’s jewellery was lost when a public mortuary (funded by Stoke-on-Trent City Council) transferred him to a hospital mortuary (part of University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS Trust [the Trust]). Mr X says this was distressing for the family, as they could not bury Mr Y with his jewellery, as he had wished. Mr X would like to know who was responsible for losing his son’s jewellery.

Back to top

The Ombudsmen’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsmen provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. They may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if they believe:
• it is unlikely they could add to any previous investigation by the bodies, and
• they cannot achieve the outcome some wants.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered information Mr X has provided in writing. Mr X had an opportunity to comment on my decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

4. Mr Y died on 19 March 2019 and moved to a public mortuary. Two days later, the mortuary recorded Mr Y’s possessions including a bracelet and a necklace.
5. The public mortuary transferred Mr Y to the hospital mortuary for a post‑mortem. The public mortuary signed and checked out Mr Y’s jewellery, which it placed in a clear plastic bag. When Mr Y arrived at the hospital mortuary, the clear plastic bag was missing. That became clear to Mr X in April 2019, when the family spoke to an undertaker about the jewellery.
6. Mr X complained to the Trust about the lost jewellery. In response, it said the jewellery was not in (or on) the body bag when it arrived at the hospital mortuary. However, the Trust asked staff in future to record property when it admits a body.
7. Mr X told the Trust the police had investigated the lost jewellery. The police report said the jewellery was in a clear plastic bag and placed inside the body bag. In response, the hospital mortuary manager met with the police. Both agreed the jewellery was most likely lost during the transfer but could not say when. The Trust and the police updated its forensic transfer process to ensure similar fault does not happen again.

Analysis

8. I do not consider an investigation by the Ombudsmen would add anything more to the Trust and police investigations. The Trust accepted the jewellery was most likely lost during the transfer. I agree with that view. Mr X told me someone knows what happened to the missing jewellery. I understand how distressing that uncertainty must be for the family. However, I do not consider, on the balance of probabilities, that an investigation would identify exactly what happened to Mr Y’s jewellery. Also, I consider the Trust’s service improvements are robust to ensure similar fault does not happen again. Therefore, I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

9. I do not consider an investigation could achieve the outcome Mr X would like or add anything to the police or Trust investigations.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsmen

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman