PSOW Individual Decisions

Mrs P said that Caerphilly County Borough Council failed to provide a response to her concerns about the way it has treated her in relation to a neighbour dispute about a boundary issue. The Ombudsman found that the Council failed to log Mrs P’s concerns as a corporate complaint. She said that this caused frustration and uncertainty to Mrs P. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to write to Mrs P with an apology and explanation for the failure and to issue a Stage 1 complaint response within 2 weeks.

Miss T complained that Caerphilly County Borough Council failed to reinstate the original day centre opportunities that her brother had before the Covid-19 pandemic. The Ombudsman found that whilst the Council had responded to Miss T’s complaint, it had not considered her complaint under the Social Services complaints procedure. She said that this caused frustration and uncertainty to Miss T. As an alternative to an investigation, the Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to apologise to Miss T, commence a Stage 2 Social Services investigation and offer Miss T £75 for her time and trouble in raising her complaint with the Ombudsman within 3 weeks.

Mr B complained that Caerphilly County Borough Council had failed to record complaints he made to it about its elected members. He also complained about the length of time it had taken to respond to his Freedom of Information (“FOI”) requests. The Ombudsman signposted Mr B to the Information Commissioner’s Office in relation to his concerns about the handling of his FOI requests. The Ombudsman found that the Council was correct when deciding not to consider Mr B’s complaints about its elected members as it does not have powers to investigate such complaints. However, the Council took several months before advising Mr B that complaints about the conduct of elected members should be made to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman found that the Council had opportunities to explain this to Mr B sooner than it did, which caused delays and frustration to Mr B. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to apologise to Mr B, within 4 weeks, for failing to advise him that it had no powers to investigate his concerns about its elected members and for failing to promptly signpost him to the Ombudsman.

Ms L complained that she had encountered difficulties with her Council Tax payments and understanding the amounts presented to her. She further complained that Caerphilly County Borough Council failed to provide help and support in resolving her concerns. The Ombudsman concluded that the Council failed to appropriately communicate the Council Tax payments to Ms L and said that this had caused her confusion and frustration. As an alternative to an investigation, the Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to write to Ms L and provide a detailed summary of the current outstanding Council Tax balance, and the amounts going forward. The Council agreed that it would action this within 30 working days.

Mr B complained that Caerphilly County Borough Council failed to provide time scales for when it would be in a position to make necessary arrangements so that his Life Story Work could commence. The Ombudsman decided that, whilst the Council had kept Mr B regularly updated, it had failed to satisfy his concerns which led to frustration as he said has not been able to access appropriate care and support. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to explain to Mr B the reasons why it has not been able to provide time scales and remind him of the updates it has provided to date within 3 weeks.

Miss A complained that she was dissatisfied with domiciliary care services being provided to her mother and that Caerphilly County Borough Council failed to carry out an independent investigation into her concerns. The Ombudsman decided that despite Miss A’s requests to escalate her concerns, the Council did not proceed to Stage 2 of the Social Services Complaints Procedure. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement within 20 working days, to offer Miss A an apology and £50 redress for the mishandling of her complaint, to proceed with an independent investigation, and to ensure that relevant staff are aware of the Council’s Social Services Complaints Policy Process.

Mr A, on behalf of a community centre management committee, complained about the Council’s handling of an application made to the Welsh Church Fund (“the Fund”), the lack of pre-application information available and the delay in drafting a lease which it was required to enter to avail of the Fund. The Ombudsman was satisfied the evidence suggested that the Council was entitled to apply its own terms and conditions to administer the Fund and it had revised its website and application form. However, she agreed that there was an extensive delay in preparing the draft lease. She decided to settle the complaint. She sought and obtained the Council’s agreement to apologise for the delay and waive the lease preparation fee, in recognition of the time and trouble cased to the management committee in pursuing the lease.

Ms X complained that the Council had failed to respond to her complaint despite a referral from the Ombudsman to do so. In making enquiries with the Council the Ombudsman was informed that the email referring the matter had appeared in its junk email inbox and therefore the complaints officer had not been aware of it. The Ombudsman was concerned that Ms X had not received a response to her complaint and was clearly inconvenienced and as an alternative to an investigation, asked the Council to agree to the following in settlement of the complaint. By4 July 2022 a) Provide Ms X with an apology and explanation for the delay in responding to her complaint b) Provide Ms X with a stage two response c) The Council should ensure that the Public Services Ombudsman(Wales) emails are no longer filtered, and junk folders are checked daily

Mrs A complained that the Council had withdrawn direct payments to Miss X, which had resulted in financial loss. Mrs A sought reinstatement of direct payments and reimbursement for the care which had been funded by Miss X. Mrs A was unhappy with the Council’s complaint response. The Ombudsman was concerned that no assessment of Miss X’s care and support needs or financial position had been undertaken by the Council. He decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to undertake an Integrated Assessment, within 6 weeks of his decision. In the event that care and support needs were identified, the Council agreed to either make a referral to the Local Health Board for a continuing care assessment or undertake a financial assessment. Within7 days of the Integrated Assessment being completed, the Council agreed to inform Miss X’s parents of the outcome of the assessment, and (subject to consent being provided), share the outcome of the assessment with the private case manager and professional deputy for Miss X. The Ombudsman’s view was that the above action was reasonable to settle the complaint.

Miss A complained that Caerphilly Council failed to properly consider her concerns, and that it ignored her requests to escalate her social services complaint to the second stage of the statutory complaints procedure. The Ombudsman decided that the Council had failed to follow the statutory complaints procedure. He said that this caused unnecessary delays for Miss A. He decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to apologise to Miss A, pay her redress of £250 and open a stage two complaint investigation within twenty working days. He also sought and gained the Council’s agreement to remind staff of complainants’ rights within the statutory complaints procedure, and to ensure that complainants are notified of their rights accordingly.

Mrs X said that her daughter had attended a particular day care centre for many years. Following the national lockdown, the Council informed her that her daughter could not return. Mrs X complained that the alternative day care centre offered would not meet her daughter’s needs. The Ombudsman found that the Council had previously responded to Mrs X’s concerns, but there was scope to escalate her complaint to stage 2 under the Social Services Complaints Procedure (Wales) Regulations 2014. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to appoint an Independent Person to investigate the concerns raised.

Mrs X complained about the Council’s management of the care arrangements and a lack of provision for her grand daughter who was currently in her care. On considering the complaint, the Ombudsman noted that the Council had failed to deal with Mrs X’s concerns (set out in a letter to the Director of Social Services) in accordance with the correct complaints process and had responded to them as a corporate complaint. He accordingly contacted the Council to ask that it take the following actions: Within one month: (a) To provide a written apology to Mrs X for not addressing her complaints under the Social Services Complaints Procedure (Wales) Regulations (“the Regulations”) in the first instance, and for failing to advise her of her statutory right to progress her concerns to the Independent Stage 2 Investigation under the Regulations. (b) To offer Mrs X redress in the sum of £125 for her time and trouble in pursuing her concerns with the Council , and his office, and for the resulting delay in being able to pursue her concerns under the Regulations. (c) To appoint an Independent Investigator to progress her concerns under Stage 2 of the Regulations. (d) To provide his office with a copy of the Stage 2 investigation report within one month of its completion. The Ombudsman considered this to be an appropriate resolution to the complaint instead of conducting an investigation.

Mrs A complained about the process followed by Caerphilly Council in its consideration of her family’s application for adaptations to their property. Mrs A complained that the family had been treated unfairly. The Ombudsman decided that the Council failed to evidence a full assessment of the adaptations and costs. There was unnecessary delay in progressing the case and the Council did not provide the family with a written reasoned decision for it to accept or challenge. The Ombudsman said that this caused the family uncertainty about their home and future, during which time, their needs had changed. He decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to undertake a full assessment of the family’s needs, revise the feasibility for adaptations and identify alternative options, provide the family with a written reasoned decision, apologise for the lack of clear communication and pay the family redress of £500.

Mr X complained that Caerphilly County Borough Council (“the Council”) had not responded sufficiently to his complaint regarding fly tipping in the local area. In considering Mr X’s complaint, the Ombudsman was concerned that Mr X had not received a response to his complaint and that he had been inconvenienced by its actions. He decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to: • Provide Mr X with an apology for the delay in responding to his complaint. • Provide Mr X with a complaint response. The recommendations had already been actioned by the time the Ombudsman’s enquiries were concluded.

Mr A and Ms B complained about a Certificate of Lawfulness for an Established Use or Development granted by Caerphilly County Borough Council (the Council) in relation to a shooting range near their home and that the Council had not responded to their complaints in accordance with its Corporate Complaints Policy. The Ombudsman declined to investigate. Although the Council had provided responses to correspondence, they had been treated as service requests. The Ombudsman found that the Council had not considered the complaint in accordance with its Corporate Complaints Policy. The Council agreed to within 20 working days, investigate the complaint under stage 1 of its Corporate Complaints Policy and provide Mr A and Ms B with a written response to the complaints submitted to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman’s view was that the above action was reasonable to settle Mr A and Ms B’s complaint.