PSOW Individual Decisions

Mrs B complained that Bridgend County Borough Council had not escalated her complaint to stage two of the social services complaint procedure. The Ombudsman found that there had been a delay by the Council to progress Mrs B’s complaint as it had instead offered her a meeting. She said this caused delays and frustration for Mrs B. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to apologise to Mrs B, pay her redress of £50 for the delay and to appoint an independent investigator within one month.

Mr A complained that Bridgend County Borough Council failed to take timely and appropriate action relating to his concerns about a housing development near his home. He was also unhappy with the Council’s handling of his complaints. The Ombudsman found that the Council had not formally investigated Mr A’s concerns. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement within10 working days, to acknowledge Mr A’s complaint and agree to provide a response in line with its Concerns and Complaints Policy.

Mr X complained that, despite several requests, the Council failed to provide requested information to him. Mr X also complained that the Council failed to respond in a timely manner following a complaint being made n May 2022. Although the context of Mr X’s complaint was out of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and related to car parking issues, the Ombudsman was concerned that Mr X was yet to receive a response from the Council. As an alternative to an investigation, the Ombudsman contacted the Council and it agreed to respond to Mr X’s concerns by 31 August 2022. The Ombudsman accepted this as a resolution to Mr X’s complaint.

Mrs X complained that the Council did not respond to her complaint regarding the installation of a cricket cage next to her home. The Ombudsman decided that the Council should provide Mrs X with a written response to her complaint by 8 July, and an apology for the delay in responding. The Ombudsman considered this to be an appropriate resolution to the complaint instead of conducting an investigation.

The Ombudsman’s office received a complaint that a Member (“the Member”) of Bridgend County Borough Council (“the Council”) had breached the Code of Conduct.  It was alleged that the Member used his position inappropriately in relation to fundraising efforts to oppose plans by the Ministry of Justice to consider using a Porthcawl hotel to house Wales’ Residential Women’s Centre. The investigation considered whether the Member failed to comply with the following provisions of the Code of Conduct: 6(1)(a) – Members must not conduct themselves in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing their office or authority into disrepute. 7(a) – Members must not in their official capacity or otherwise, use or attempt to use their position improperly to confer on or secure for themselves, or any other person, an advantage or create or avoid for themselves, or any other person, a disadvantage. During the investigation, copies of relevant documents were obtained from the Council, witness accounts were obtained, and an account was provided by the Member. The investigation found that the Member did not gain financially from his actions; there was no evidence to support a breach of paragraph 7(a) of the Code of Conduct.  However it found that, although the Member’s intentions may have been well meaning, he provided misleading information to residents when they were asked to donate money to a fund which was not necessary, and from which they could not retrieve their money if the anticipated legal action did not take place.  No planning application had actually been submitted so there was no planning application to be challenged at that time.  The Member ought to have known that the information was not correct.  The Ombudsman therefore considered that the Member’s conduct was such that it may amount to a breach of paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Code of Conduct. The report on the investigation was referred to the Monitoring Officer of Bridgend County Borough Council for considera

Mr X was unhappy that a home to school transport arrangement in place for when he had staying access to his son was cancelled with no prior notice or consultation. He said that this had resulted in the loss of access in seeing his son. The Ombudmsan found that although Mr X complained to the Council and had received a stage 1 formal response, the Council had not yet progressed the complaint to stage 2 of its procedure. The Council agreed to progress Mr X’s complaint to stage 2 and issue a stage 2 formal response by 28 February 2022. The Ombudsman considered that the action which the Council agreed to do was reasonable and would resolve the complaint as an alternative to investigating it.

Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to deal with his request for assistance in addressing the problems caused by his neighbour’s boundary trees. The Ombudsman found that the Council had passed Mr X’s enquiry onto a neighbouring local authority in error, which then did not take any action as the matter was not within their remit. He decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to, within 20 working days, apologise to Mr X for the failure to properly process his request. The Council also agreed to explain its policy and procedure in respect of High Hedges, including confirmation of any applicable fee and details of any further information which was required from Mr X.

Mr N complained that Bridgend County Borough Council (“the Council”), in its capacity as the Local Education Authority (“LEA”), had failed to provide adequately for the education of his grandson, D. Specifically, he was concerned that the process for assessing D’s special educational needs and completing a Statement of Special Educational Needs (“SSEN”) was unduly delayed and that the Council failed to make appropriate arrangements to ensure the effective implementation of the SSEN. He also complained that the Council had failed to provide an adequate response to his complaint. The investigation found that there had been maladministration in the form of unexplained delays at 1 stage in the assessment process, but did not uphold that part of the complaint, because the failings had not caused harm or injustice. It found that there was no evidence that maladministration had occurred in respect of the LEA’s arrangements for implementation of the SSEN. For that reason, the Ombudsman did not uphold that part of the complaint. Finally, the investigation found that there had been a failure on the part of the Council to properly address Mr N’s complaint about D’s provision. Accordingly, the Ombudsman upheld that aspect of the complaint. The Council agreed to the Ombudsman’s recommendations to, within 1 month, apologise to Mr N for its complaint handling failures and make a payment to him for £125 in respect of the unnecessary time and trouble associated with pursuing his complaint.

Ms X complained about a number of aspects of her Social Services complaint to the Council relating to her and her mother, Mrs Y. Despite a number of her complaints being upheld by the Stage 2 Investigation’s Independent Investigator, Ms X remained dissatisfied with the outcome of the investigation and the Council’s response to it. Ms X complained about the length of time it took the Council to investigate and respond to her complaint which she said was not in line with its policy. In addition, Ms X complained that all her complaints in relation to her as Mrs Y’s carer were upheld but that this alongside an apology was insufficient. She also said she was unhappy with the way the complaints about Mrs Y were dealt with, in particular, that the Stage 2 investigation did not uphold her concern about the carers responsible for Mrs Y’s care, and her disappointment with the outcome of the complaint about the implementation of Mrs Y’s care plan. Ms X said the financial aspect of her complaint had not been investigated or acknowledged by the Council and she was unhappy about this. Ms X said the Stage 2 investigation did not adjudicate on a matter as it said it was NHS related; she said the issue was that the social worker had not passed on a matter to the NHS. Finally, Ms X complained about the fact that the complaint about the befriending service was only partially upheld; she said that the service was not offered to Mrs Y or to her to arrange on her mother’s behalf. The Council agreed to undertake the following action to resolve Ms X’s complaint within 20 working days of the Ombudsman’s decision: • Provide Ms X with an update on the action taken as a result of her complaint. Offer Ms X £250 financial redress for the time taken to deal with her complaint. • Issue a reminder to Social Care Staff in line with the Independent Investigator’s recommendation that they should refrain from making promises on behalf of NHS staff. • Demonstrate that it has reminded staff to ensure dec

Ms F complained on behalf of herself and a young person, Ms G. Ms G confirmed to the Ombudsman that she supported the complaint. Ms F complained that Bridgend County Borough Council had not properly managed the arrangement by which Ms G was living with her by clarifying her status as a Foster Carer or putting anything in place to maintain that arrangement, such as the “When I am Ready” (WIR) Scheme (this supports young people leaving local authority care). She complained that the Council had not given Ms G enough support and assistance after she left its care. She also complained that she was dissatisfied with its complaint handling. The Ombudsman considered that the Council had not clarified Ms F’s status as a Foster Carer and that it had not been reasonable for the Council to say that Ms G’s placement with Ms F was a private one because it had been party to it. He found that the support given to maintain the arrangement by which Ms G was living with Ms F had been inadequate, after Ms G’s 18 birthday, because of Ms G’s ongoing vulnerability, her care leaver status and the practice principles that local authorities must take into account when engaging with young people who are leaving care and making any decision about them. He said that the family had struggled financially as a result and that that financial strain had placed avoidable pressure on Ms G’s relationship with Ms F. He upheld Ms F’s complaint. He determined that the Council should have made a WIR arrangement for Ms F and Ms G. He noted that the Council’s Pathway planning (planning for a young person’s departure from care and transition to adulthood) and related documentation had been flawed. He found that the support and assistance given to Ms G after she left the Council’s care, in terms of her living arrangement, had been inadequate. He said that the Council’s failure to plan effectively for Ms G’s departure from care meant that she had been denied the opportunity of having an appropriately resourced

Mrs A complained that an Admissions Appeal Panel for a School in the area of Bridgend County Borough Council (“the Panel”) failed to provide her with a decision letter following an appeal held in respect of her son on 14 July 2021. The Ombudsman found that the Panel had not issued Mrs A with its decision letter, in accordance with the School Admissions Appeals Code. The Ombudsman sought and obtained the Panel’s agreement to provide Mrs A with a written apology for the delay and to provide her with its signed decision letter, within 5 working days.

Miss B complained that a social worker employed by Bridgend County Borough Council (“the Council”) had disclosed personal information about her and her children to her former partner. This had enabled him to apply to court to seek contact to the children, causing her distress. She wanted answers about what had happened but she had been waiting for weeks for the Council to respond to her complaint. The Ombudsman was concerned about the delay in responding to Miss B’s complaint, albeit would not himself be able to consider and resolve data breach allegations or child contact matters. Neverthelss, he could deal with the delay in complaint handling, which was within his remit. As an alternative to investigating that element of the complaint, he contacted the Council and sought its agreement to undertake the following actions to resolve the complaint. Both actions were to be completed within 1 month: • To apologise in writing to Miss B for the delay in responding to the complaint. • To provide its complaint response on the data breach allegation.

Mr X is a foster carer for his grandchild. He complained that that the Council would not allow him to access part of its payment policy; he said that there should be equal treatment for all foster carers. Based on the information available, it appeared to the Ombudsman that Mr X’s complaint should have been considered under the statutory social services complaints procedure, but had not been. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X and to open an investigation under stage 2 of the statutory process within 1 month.