Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about his late mother Mrs X’s care provider losing her jewellery and not advising her family about an earlier theft at the care home. Investigation would not achieve a different or worthwhile outcome. The complaint is a claim of legal liability for the loss of the property which it would be reasonable for Mr X to pursue as an insurance claim or, if declined, to the courts.

The complaint

1. Mrs X was in a care home until her death. Her son Mr X complains the care provider:
1. is responsible for the loss or theft of Mrs X’s jewellery;
2. was negligent in failing to tell him or Mrs X’s family about a theft of valuables by a staff member several months earlier.
2. Mr X says the jewellery held some financial and significant sentimental value. He says he has lost the opportunity to possibly identify and recover the jewellery because he was not told of the earlier theft at the home. Mr X says the matter has caused upset and distress to him and his family. He wants the care firm to apologise, pay for the jewellery, change its policies and tell the remaining care home residents’ families about the theft.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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)
5. We investigate complaints about adult social care providers. 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
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information from Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The issue at the core of Mr X’s complaint is what happened to the jewellery and a claim for compensation. We will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we could add anything to the care provider’s actions or obtain a different outcome. Investigation would not provide any realistic prospect of us recovering the jewellery or finding out what happened to it. The matter is with the police service which is the body best placed to investigate allegations of theft, which is not our role.
8. Mr X may also make a claim against the care provider’s insurance if he considers the care provider should be held responsible for the jewellery. If his insurance claim is rejected, he can take the matter to court. It would be reasonable for Mr X to do this because the court can decide if the care provider was negligent and is liable for the loss of the items. Negligence and liability for property loss are legal issues we cannot determine. The court can also consider whether the care provider’s decision not to inform Mr X about the earlier theft at the home contributed to any losses claimed. If the court finds the care provider legally liable for any loss, it may also order payment of compensation. The court can therefore give Mr X the outcome he wants for the claimed injustices affecting him and his family, while we cannot make findings of legal liability and can only make recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• it is unlikely we could add to the care provider’s actions and achieve a different outcome for Mr X; and
• it would be reasonable for him to use the legal route available to him to pursue the remedy sought for the claimed injustices to him and his family.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman