PSOW Individual Decisions

We investigated a complaint from Mrs A about whether the Council responded appropriately to reports of damp and mould made by her since 2009. The investigation identified a number of shortcomings in the way the Council approached repeated reports of damp and mould, particularly in the bathroom, the cumulative effect of which amounted to maladministration. The Council failed to identify a recurring issue over many years and applied the same solution without investigating other possible causes. This was not in accordance with the principles of its Damp and Mould Policy, including investing in both preventative and reactive measures. Furthermore, the failure to document details of damp surveys after 2019 and the outcomes of loft inspections, or carry these out when indicated, are likely to have delayed the identification of a roof leak and wet insulation which potentially allowed damage to occur for much longer than it should have. In addition, the failure to implement some of the initiatives outlined in its own literature and required by the Welsh Housing Quality Standard meant that the bathroom ventilation was not of a standard it should have been. The impact of this maladministration meant that Mrs A had to repeatedly raise the same repair issue over a significant amount of time, which was an injustice to her and her family over a prolonged period. Mrs A’s complaint was upheld. The Council agreed to implement a number of recommendations including an apology, financial redress for the inconvenience and distress caused, review the schedule of identified works and complete any outstanding actions, arrange a further damp survey and complete and publish its new repairs policy.

Mrs D complained that Cardiff Council was not collecting her waste on a regular basis and that she had been informed that her address was not registered on its “assisted lift” service. Mrs D said that this had caused her “huge stress and inconvenience”. The Ombudsman found that the Council had continued to miss Mrs D’s waste collections despite her making a formal complaint. However, by the time Mrs D approached the Ombudsman, her waste was being collected. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to contact Mrs D to apologise, offer Mrs D £150 for the inconvenience caused by the missed waste collections and having to approach the Ombudsman, and to monitor Mrs D’s waste collections over the next 12 weeks.

Mrs X complained that Cardiff Council failed to respond to the concerns she submitted regarding the green space near her property. The Ombudsman found that the Council had not provided Mrs X with a complaint response. The Ombudsman said this caused uncertainty and frustration for Mrs X. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to, within 4 weeks, provide the complaint response that will also include an apology and explanation for not considering the complaint via the complaint procedure and an offer of a £50 financial redress payment for the time and trouble.

Ms A complained about various issues around Cardiff Council’s waste collection and the condition of communal/bin areas at the block of flats where she was a tenant. When the Ombudsman sought the Council’s comments on the concerns raised, it proposed a site visit involving Housing and Waste Officers, with Ms A welcome to attend, to evaluate what adjustments or alternative arrangements would be appropriate. This site visit would be followed by a written summary of the Council’s findings and formal position. Instead of investigating the complaint, the Ombudsman obtained the Council’s agreement to establish definitively, within 1 month, whether Ms A wanted to attend the site visit. If Ms A was inclined to attend the site visit, the Council would arrange, within 3 months, for that site meeting to take place. If Ms A was not inclined to attend the site meeting, the Council would arrange a site visit, within 2 months, in order to identify and resolve the concerns. In either case, the Council would issue its written summary within 1 month of the site visit/meeting.

Ms Z complained that Cardiff Council repeatedly failed to provide the assisted waste collection service. She also complained that the Council refused to reimburse the costs of having to arrange private waste collection. The Ombudsman found that the Council failed to collect Ms Z’s waste despite being registered for assisted collections. This caused additional frustration and uncertainty for Ms Z. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to arrange immediate collection of all missed waste. It also agreed to, within 2 weeks, consider invoices received from Ms Z for the private waste collections and to offer £100financial redress for time and trouble.

Mr A complained about mould and damp in his property, and the cleaning of his windows. The Ombudsman recognised that whilst Cardiff Council (“the Council”) had taken steps to alleviate issues, Mr A continued to report mould and damp in his home. There was also dispute over whether the windows of Mr A’s property had been cleaned as agreed in the Council’s complaint response of 8 April 2025. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement, to within 28 days, undertake a cleaning of the windows as agreed in the complaint response, undertake a full independent damp and mould survey of the property to identify the likely cause of the damp with a particular view to consider the windows/guttering. Then within 2 weeks of the survey, to provide Mr A with the findings of the inspection, and agree to carry out any works proposed.

Ms C complained about the condition of the property she rented from Cardiff Council. The Ombudsman investigated whether the Council failed to respond to and act upon reports of leaks and extensive damp and mould at the property appropriately and in a timely manner. The investigation also considered whether, after the property was identified as not fit for human habitation in July 2024, the Council carried out repair works in a timely manner and made reasonable efforts to provide alternative accommodation for Ms C’s family. The investigation identified serious service failures which had a devastating impact on Ms C and her family. The Ombudsman upheld all the complaints. The Ombudsman found that the Council was aware of the presence of damp and mould in April 2021 and over several years Ms C had made multiple reports of a significant leak from the bathroom causing damage to the kitchen ceiling. The Council missed numerous opportunities over nearly 4 years to properly investigate and resolve the causes of the leak and the damp and mould. By March 2024 the property had fallen into an appalling state of disrepair. There were extensive patches of black mould throughout the property and large amounts of water were leaking through a gaping hole in the kitchen ceiling and cascading over live electrical fittings onto surfaces and units. The Ombudsman found that there were further avoidable delays in arranging necessary repairs after the Council formally decided that the property was not fit for human habitation in July 2024. In addition, the process for considering whether Ms C’s family required alternative accommodation was chaotic and dysfunctional. The Ombudsman found that the damp and mould posed significant hazards to the health of Ms C and her family, some of whom suffered from asthma. It also damaged or destroyed many of the family’s possessions. The despair of living in such poor conditions over a long period appeared to have contributed to the slow disintegration of

Mr A made a complaint on behalf of Mr B regarding the actions of Cardiff Council (“the Council”) in February 2024 when Enforcement Agents (“EA”) wrongly identified Mr B as a person who owed money for parking offences. The investigation focused on whether the EAs followed appropriate procedures in identifying Mr B as the person who owed money for the parking offences, whether the Council failed to act appropriately towards Mr B as a vulnerable person who spoke very little English and needed a translator and whether the Council’s response to the complaint was appropriate. Following the commencement of the investigation, the Council agreed to the following in full settlement of the complaint. The Council agreed, within 1 month of this decision, to: • pay Mr B £500 in recognition of the distress caused by the enforcement visit and the compounding distress caused by its initial handling of the complaint. • provide Mr B with a meaningful written apology for both the issues around the enforcement visit and for the way in which the complaint was subsequently handled. The Council agreed, within 3 months of this decision to: • draft and provide the Ombudsman with a copy of its approved internal guidelines in support of current working practices for EAs, which will specifically include the following: – Identification checks: A form of identification will be requested to ensure engagement is undertaken with the correct individuals where appropriate and proportionate, for example: where there are communication or language barriers, where there is doubt around whether the person present is the named debtor or where verification is necessary to proceed lawfully or safely. – Body Worn Cameras (“BWC”): Where language barriers are evident during property visits, EAs will activate BWCs to ensure that all conversations are recorded. If the EA believes there has been a lack of understanding, they will notify the Senior EA to ensure the footage is retained beyond the usual retention peri

Miss A complained that the Council had not collected her hygiene waste, despite the assurances provided to her in the Council’s written response to her complaint. The Ombudsman found that whilst the Council had told Miss A that a crew would return to collect her hygiene waste and practical monitoring measures, such as confirmation calls from the crew to a supervisor each time her waste was collected over a period of time, would be implemented, Miss A’s hygiene waste was not collected. The Ombudsman accepted that the Council had failed to act on the assurances provided to Miss A and ensure consistent hygiene waste collections. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to contact Miss A, within 1 week, to arrange for her outstanding waste to be collected and to issue a letter of apology to Miss A, within 2 weeks for their failings. The Council also agreed to complete an investigation, within 4 weeks, into why Miss A’s waste was not collected. Within 2 weeks of the completion of the investigation, the Council agreed to implement practical measures to address their failings and write to Miss A setting out the outcome and actions of the investigation.

Mrs K complained that Cardiff Council failed to respond to a complaint she submitted in April 2025. The Ombudsman found that the Council failed to pass the complaint for formal consideration under its complaint process. This caused additional frustration and uncertainty for Mrs K. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to formally log the complaint and to write to Mrs K, within 2 weeks, to apologise and explain the oversight. To confirm that the complaint is being formally considered and to offer£100 financial redress.

Miss A complained about the Council’s handling of her housing application and the action taken in relation to rent arrears on a property that she had accepted, but not lived in. The Ombudsman found that there were communication failings, and opportunities for the Council to have informed Miss A to provide Notice to Quit sooner. As a result, Miss A accrued substantial rent arrears. This caused Ms A significant stress and matters remain unresolved for her. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Council agreed to, within 4 weeks, reconsider Miss A’s complaint and whether she should be liable for the full amount of rent arrears. It also agreed to provide Miss A with a formal complaint response, addressing all matters raised with the Council and the Ombudsman.

Mr A complained that there were delays and miscommunications in Cardiff Council’s handling of his application for a Disabled Facilities Grant, which led to him arranging the adaptations before the grant was approved, and left him in debt. The Ombudsman decided that the Council’s record-keeping and communication were poor and that there were some avoidable delays, but not all the delays could be attributed to a failing by the Council. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to contact Mr A within 1 month, to apologise for the poor communication, and pay him £500 in recognition of the time and trouble he spent pursuing his application. The Council also agreed to review its processes within 3 months.

Miss X complained that Cardiff Council had failed to provide her with a key for her side gate and it also offered her a £100 compensation, and she is yet to receive this. The Ombudsman found that the information provided to the Council’s finance department was fragmented and therefore needed to be resubmitted. This information was not communicated with the service area. She said this caused frustrations for Miss X. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to, within 2 weeks, offer an apology and explanation for the delayed payment and issue a complaint response addressing Miss X’s outstanding concerns.

Mr X complained that Cardiff Council failed to address the situation regarding the garden at the property and was dissatisfied with the response. The Ombudsman found that Mr X and the Council came to an agreement regarding the garden, however the Council still wanted to issue the response it intended to. The Ombudsman sought the Council’s agreement to, within 4 weeks, issue the response that it had intended to regarding the complaint. The Council’s response will also include an update on the current situation with the garden.

Ms A complained because she was unhappy that Cardiff Council had failed to fix a leak in the property above her flat, causing damage to her ceiling. The Ombudsman noted that the Council had inspected both Ms A’s flat and the property above. The Council informed Ms A that there was no evidence of a leak, but also acknowledged condensation on a ceiling fitting. Ms A informed the Ombudsman that the leak remains and is getting worse. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to, within 2 weeks, carry out a further inspection of the properties to identify the source of the leak, and to inform Ms A of any next steps to betaken. The Council agreed that if it is unable to access the property above within the timeframe it would communicate this with Ms A.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that a Member (“the Member”) of Cardiff Council (“the Council”) had breached the Code of Conduct. It was alleged that the Member had included the names of her fellow ward councillors to a letter to the Council’s licensing committee, objecting to an application from a local takeaway business to extend its opening hours, without asking them.  The Complainant alleged that the Member acted dishonestly, in order to give the objection letter greater credibility.  The Ombudsman determined that investigation was appropriate and that paragraphs 6(1)(a) and 7(a) of the Code should be considered. We obtained contemporaneous evidence that the Member had discussed whether to object with her fellow councillors before sending the objection letter.  The other councillors confirmed that they were happy for her to have included their names to the objection.  They also confirmed that when the applicant appealed the licensing committee’s decision, the Member had checked again whether they wanted to continue to object, which they had. Therefore there was no evidence that the Member had breached the Code.

Mr A complained that Cardiff Council had not given fair and proper consideration to his request for unsupervised contact with his children. The Ombudsman decided that the Council had failed to properly assess the children’s needs and views and that the information it provided in response to Mr A’s complaints was not accurate. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to provide Mr A with a meaningful apology within 2 weeks for the failings in the assessment of the children’s needs and the inaccurate information in the complaint response.

Miss B complained about the action taken by Cardiff Council to address housing repairs required in her property. She also complained about issues with communication about appointments for works to be completed. The Ombudsman found that although the Council had taken action to address the required works, the issues had been ongoing for a prolonged period of time and Miss B had not been provided a clear plan for works to be completed. In addition, Miss B remained unclear of how information would be communicated to her about appointments for works to be completed at her property. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to, within 4 weeks, provide Miss B with a written outline of the work completed at the property over the last 12 months. In addition, it agreed to provide Miss B with a written plan for any further identified works required and when these will take place, including confirmation that damp and mould issues had been resolved. The Council also agreed to provide Miss B with detail of the options for communication methods available with the Council or contractors regarding any future work required.

Mr G complained that Cardiff Council failed to respond to a Social Services complaint submitted in January 2025. The Ombudsman found that the Council failed to inform Mr G there was a delay with its investigation. This cause additional frustration and uncertainty for Mr G. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to pay Mr G £50 financial redress, within 2 weeks, for failing to comply with its complaint process.

Mrs B complained about ongoing delays by the Council in responding to repairs relating to kitchen damp and external rear guttering, as well as ongoing poor communication relating to these issues. The Ombudsman investigated Mrs B’s complaint about whether the Council had responded to her reports of kitchen damp and mould (and associated repair work), and reports of water overflowing from external rear guttering, and whether it had addressed the underlying causes appropriately and in a timely manner. The Ombudsman also agreed an early resolution with the Council that, within 2 weeks of the investigation starting, the Council would commission an independent damp inspection for the property. If the inspection recommended any repairs, the Council agreed it would provide the Ombudsman with a plan of action/scheme of works (including dates for expected completion, to be in line with the Council’s own timeframes for urgent or routine work). The Council confirmed the outcome of the damp inspection, confirmed the scheme of works to be completed and provided dates for these works to start, which was in line with its usual policy. The Ombudsman was satisfied that the Council had complied with the early resolution. In responding to the investigation, the Council acknowledged failings relating to the ongoing delays Mrs B experienced relating to kitchen and guttering repairs over a number of years, as well as lack of appropriate communication with her. The failings caused significant distress and inconvenience to Mrs B and her family, and this was an injustice to them. The Council provided evidence that its repairs services had been subject to internal review and that extensive policy, procedural and system changes had taken place, and would continue to take place, as a result of this review, which would address communication and delay failings. The Ombudsman considered that the actions taken by the Council as a result of the internal review were in line with the types of recommen

Ms A complained that the Council had failed to correctly assess her Council Tax liability and Council Tax Reduction (CTR)benefit. She was also concerned that the Council had failed to correctly assess eligibility for Free School Meals (FSM) and a School Essentials Grant (SEG).She said that the Council had failed to do these things over a 5 year period. The assessment found that Ms A’s concerns, as they related to the period before September 2023, were out of time to this office. Her concerns about Council Tax liability and the CTR benefit were outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. The assessment found that the Council had failed to assess eligibility for FSM when Ms A had made an application for CTR in January2024. The Council later established that her son had been eligible for FSM, backdated to January 2024. It was also possible he may have been eligible from October 2023 onwards. As FSM eligibility had not been determined in a timely manner by the Council, Ms A had missed the opportunity to obtain a SEG for the2023-2024 academic year. Instead of investigating this complaint, the Ombudsman obtained the Council’s agreement to resolve Ms A’s concerns. It agreed to assess the correct period of eligibility for FSM and offer to refund Ms A the payments she made during that period. It also agreed to retrospectively assess her eligibility for a SEG for 2023/24 and offer her the sum she would have been entitled to, and to offer a payment of£100 for time and trouble.

Mr B complained that he was unhappy with the communication of Cardiff Council’s (‘the Council’) Social Services. Mr B said that despite contacting Social Services on many occasions about concerns for his children he was being ignored. The Ombudsman found that in August 2024 Mr B was informed by Social Services that he would receive 8-weekly updates regarding his children. The Ombudsman found that although Social Services were acting on concerns raised, it was not maintaining communication with Mr B sufficiently. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to, within 1 month, apologise to Mr B for failing to maintain 8-weekly updates in respect of his children, and to provide Mr B with a clear plan for what he can expect communication with Social Services to look like moving forward.

Mr A complained about the action taken by Cardiff Council to address issues with pests from a neighbouring Council let property. Mr A said that these issues had been ongoing since November 2022, and he had not been assured that adequate follow-up work had either been completed or planned. He raised concerns that he had paid for work to be completed to try to resolve the issues due to the length of time taken for the Council to take the required action. The Ombudsman found that, although the Council had completed some work, it had not fully resolved the issues at the property. Whilst work was underway, it did not seem that an action plan was in place to ensure that the pest control issues were fully resolved. The Council did not show that it had provided Mr A with the full information for how to submit a compensation claim. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to conduct a full follow-up investigation to ensure that all required works at the property let by the Council to manage pest control are completed. Following this, within 4 weeks, provide Mr A with a response outlining the findings of the follow up investigation and a plan if any further action is required. In addition, the Council agreed to provide Mr A with the information for submitting a compensation claim.

Miss A complained because she was unhappy with the actions of Social Services within Cardiff Council (‘the Council’). Miss A said that the information in the wellbeing assessments for her children was inaccurate. The Ombudsman considered the Council’s complaint response, which invited Miss A to submit further information about what parts of the wellbeing assessments she believed to be inaccurate. The Council confirmed that Miss A had submitted further information in February 2025, but it had not been responded to. The Ombudsman decided that Miss A should receive a response to her further submitted information. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to, within 1 month, offer Miss A an apology for the delay in responding to her further submitted information and to provide a response.

Ms A complained about the action taken by Cardiff Council to address antisocial behaviour, issues with her boiler and about the information provided to her about housing options. The Ombudsman found that the Council had taken some action to address Ms A’s concerns, however, some issues were ongoing. Ms A was also unclear of her housing options and the support available to her. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to provide Ms A with clarification and information about her housing options and support available to her within 2 weeks. It also agreed to fully investigate any outstanding antisocial behaviour incidents and to provide Ms A with a response within 4 weeks. The Council also agreed to investigate the concerns raised by Ms A about her boiler and to provide a comprehensive response about this, including an action plan for any required works, within 4 weeks.