PSOW Individual Decisions

Miss G complained that the Council failed to complete agreed adaptations and repairs to her flat since late 2022. She said that some works had not been undertaken and that the Council had subsequently refused other works despite assurances, before she moved in, that they would be completed. The Ombudsman found that the Council’s Stage 2 complaint investigation had identified significant delays resolving Miss G’s concerns, as well as shortcomings in communications, managing her expectations and explaining the reasons for its decisions. However, despite those findings and previous involvement from the Ombudsman, the Council failed to improve its approach to managing the situation and failed to resolve those issues with sufficient urgency and promptness. The Council agreed to apologise to Miss G and offer her £250 in recognition of the inconvenience and her time and trouble in pursuing the complaint within 1 month. It also agreed to offer Miss G a new comprehensive Occupational Therapy assessment, provide her with an updated list of all the outstanding issues with specific timescales, and to resolve all issues within those given timescales.

Ms G complained that Carmarthenshire County Council failed to respond to her complaint about historical abuse. The Ombudsman found that the Council failed to log Ms G’s concerns as a complaint. She said that this caused frustration and uncertainty to Ms G. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to write to Ms with an apology and explanation for the failure and to issue a complaint response within 5 weeks.

Mrs G complained that Carmarthenshire County Council failed to undertake the necessary repairs to her flat. The Ombudsman found that whilst the Council had issued a Stage 1 complaint response it had failed to escalate Mrs G’s concerns to Stage 2 of its complaints process. She said that this caused frustration and uncertainty to Mrs G. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to write to Mrs G with an apology and explanation for the failure to log her concerns as a Stage 2 complaint, offer to pay £75 redress for her time and trouble in making her complaint to the Ombudsman and issue a Stage 2 complaint response within 3 weeks.

Mr M complained that Carmarthenshire County Council failed to respond to a complaint he had submitted in March about a planning application. The Ombudsman found that the Council had failed to respond to Mr M’s complaint. She said that this caused inconvenience and frustration to Mr M. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to apologise to Mr M for failing to respond to his complaint and provide him with a complaint response within 4 weeks.

Miss F complained that Carmarthenshire County Council had failed to acknowledge and respond to a complaint she submitted in May. The Ombudsman found that the Council had received Miss F’s complaint but due to an administrative oversight it had failed to provide an acknowledgement or response. The Ombudsman said that this caused delays and frustration for Miss F. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to apologise to Miss F and provide a complaint response within 30 working days.

The Ombudsman received a self-referred complaint from a Member (“the Member”) of Carmarthenshire County Council (“the Council”) that they may have breached the Code of Conduct.  The Member said that during a council training session other members of the Council heard him “swearing”. The Ombudsman’s investigation considered whether the Member’s conduct may have breached paragraphs 4(b) and 6(1)(a) of the Council’s Code of Conduct.  Information was obtained from the Council, including a link to a recording of the Council training session.  Witnesses were interviewed. In comments to the Ombudsman, the Member said that he attended the Council’s training session via Zoom and was heard “swearing”.  The Member explained that he was in the office of his private business whilst attending the Council training session, he had not realised his microphone was not on mute and during the session, he had an exchange with a sub‑contractor and used a “few swearing words”.  The Member said that the comments were to his sub-contractor and were not aimed at any member of the Council.  He apologised for the incident and offered to apologise to the full Council. The Ombudsman found that the Member’s explanation for his comments appeared to be credible.  Whilst the language he used following his private exchange with his sub-contractor was disrespectful, the evidence gathered suggested that it was a private exchange, and she was therefore not persuaded that there was sufficient evidence suggestive of a breach of paragraph 4(b) of the Code. However, the Ombudsman found that the Member’s wholly inappropriate comments were heard by members of the Council, officers of the Council delivering the training and also attracted significant media interest and were widely reported in the press.  The Ombudsman determined that as a result of the adverse publicity which reported on the Member’s conduct during a council training session, the Member’s comments were such that could reasonably be regarded as

Mr X complained about Carmarthenshire County Council’s (“the Council”) failure to provide him with a copy of a report undertaken by an Independent Investigator (“II”) for a period of 12 months. Mr X said that the report contained inaccuracies, and he was not provided with the opportunity to review a draft report, to correct these. Finally, Mr X raised concerns about the independence of the II, and said that the report was biased against him, and contained inappropriate comments. The Ombudsman found that there was a failure on the part of the Council to provide Mr X with a copy of the II’s report, which it only provided to him following him contacting her office. Further, she found that Mr X was not afforded the opportunity to correct factual inaccuracies contained within the II’s report. Finally, the Council had not informed Mr X, which, if any, of the recommendations contained within the II’s report had been implemented. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to undertake the following actions: Within 20 working days: · Provide a meaningful apology to Mr X, together with a full explanation for the failure to provide him with the Independent Investigator’s report for a period of 12 months. · Consider Mr X’s submission about the factual inaccuracies contained within the Independent Investigator’s report and attach these to the report (so that one document is formed) with an addendum that anyone who is provided with the report should also consider his submission at the same time. · Provide a detailed explanation to Mr X, fully outlining which (if any) of the Independent Investigator’s recommendations had been implemented, which were outstanding (and the timeframe for completion) and details of any additional improvements made to the Council’s Planning Service. · Provide a meaningful apology for the failure to investigate Mr X’s original complaint (dealt with at Stage 2 in September 2020) properly.

Ms A complained that Carmarthenshire County Council had failed to rectify the issues she was experiencing with water entering her property and had failed to log the works recommended in a surveyors report. The Ombudsman decided that there had been a significant delay by the Council to log the works required. This caused delays and frustration for Ms A. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to apologise to Ms A and provide her with £100 for the failure to log the work. The Council also agreed, by the end of January, to provide Ms A with a stage two complaint response which includes a schedule of works to be undertaken.

Ms X complained about several outstanding repairs at her home, and the delayed response to her complaint. The Ombudsman contacted the Council and it agreed to provide, within 6 workings days, a response to Mrs X’s complaint, an apology for the delay and a timeline for completing any identified repairs. The Ombudsman considered this to be a sufficient resolution as an alternative to investigating the complaint.

Mr S complained that further to an early resolution agreement between the Council and Ombudsman in June 2021, he had not yet received a full response from the Council, and it had failed to keep him updated. The Ombudsman was concerned that Ms S had yet to receive a full response to his concerns, and that the Council had failed to comply with the previous early resolution. The Ombudsman therefore contacted the Council and agreed on the following. The Council agreed that it would write to Mr S and apologise for the delays experienced. As the report had now been concluded, the Council also agreed that it would issue Mr S with a full copy of the report within20 working days. The Ombudsman accepted this as a resolution to Mr S’ complaint.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that a Member (“the Member”) of Llandovery Town Council (“the Council”) had breached the Code of Conduct.  The Member had been convicted of drug driving and it was reported in a newspaper that she did not intend to stand down as Mayor. The investigation considered whether the Member failed to comply with paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Code of Conduct in that members must not conduct themselves in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing their office or authority into disrepute. The Ombudsman considered the Member’s conviction and the fact that her sentence fell short of automatic disqualification as outlined in Section 80A of the Local Government Act 1972.  The Ombudsman also considered the account provided by the Member. The Ombudsman considered whether further action was needed in the public interest and the overriding purpose of the ethical standards regime in Wales, which is to uphold standards of conduct in public life and maintain confidence in local democracy.  The Ombudsman was of the view that the Member’s conviction and the press coverage that followed which referred to the Council, the Member’s membership of the Council and her position as Mayor, could be regarded a conduct that was capable of bringing her Council and/or her office as a councillor into disrepute and was suggestive of a breach of paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Code of Conduct. The report on the investigation was referred to the Monitoring Officer of Carmarthenshire County Council for consideration by its Standards Committee. The Standards Committee concluded that the member had breached paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Code of Conduct.  Accordingly, the Standards Committee decided that the Member should be suspended to 2 months and be required to attend Code of Conduct training within 6 months.

Ms X complained that despite the Council taking over 18 months to complete works in her home, there were still repairs that were outstanding. She said she had formally complained to the Council but had never received a written response. In considering the complaint, the Ombudsman was concerned that after such a lengthy period of time there were repairs that still needed to be completed and that Ms X had not received a response to her complaint. As an alternative to an investigation, the Council was asked to undertake the following in settlement of the complaint: a) Provide Ms X with an apology for the delay in responding to her complaint and the completion of the works. b) Provide Ms X with a formal complaint response c) Provide Ms X with £100 redress for the time and trouble in pursuing these matters and general inconvenience d) The Council are to undertake an inspection within one month to ascertain exactly what is now outstanding and then set out a programme of work specifying when each item will be completed e) The completion of all works to be no later than 3 months post inspection.

Mrs A complained about the robustness and accuracy of a Stage 2 investigation undertaken by the Council into the care and support provided to her late mother (Mrs C) by an Extra Care Facility operated by Pobl. The Ombudsman commenced an investigation into the appropriateness of the Stage 2 investigation against the Council and exercised discretion and commenced an investigation against Pobl in relation to the substantive aspects of Mrs A’s complaint. The Council undertook an internal review of the Stage 2 investigation and identified that certain aspects of the investigation report were not as robust as it would expect. It was not satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to support all of the findings. The Council agreed to undertake the following actions: • Within 1month apologise to Mrs A for the issues identified within the internal review in relation to the robustness of the original Stage 2 investigation and provide her with a redress payment of £450 in recognition of the inconvenience and distress of pursuing the complaint • Within 4 months undertake a further Stage 2 investigation (undertaken by a new Independent Investigator). Whilst the remit of the investigation is to be agreed between Mrs A and the Independent Investigator, the investigation will consider as a minimum: • Whether care staff should have undertaken checks on Mrs C overnight between 23 and 24 January 2020 and whether these checks were carried out • Whether care staff applied Timodine cream as directed between 13 January and 23 January 2020 • Whether the care staff ensured Mrs C’s skin integrity was monitored in January 2020 given the moisture damage that she had around her groin and sacrum area upon attendance at hospital • Whether care staff should have arranged for Mrs C to be moved off the commode sooner on 23 January 2020

Miss X complained that the Council failed to respond to her complaint about her neighbour’s alleged breach of planning permission. The Council confirmed that Miss X’s complaint had been treated as a ‘redirect’ and not a complaint and accepted that Miss X had not been notified of this. The Council agreed to complete the following in settlement of Miss X’s complaint by 12 May 2022, as an alternative to the Ombudsman investigating it: a) Provide Miss X with an apology and explanation for failing to notify her that her complaint was treated as a ‘redirect’ and not a complaint b) Provide a complaint response to Miss X.

Ms X complained that the Council failed to act on her request for a NHS Continuing Care assessment, and also that the Council had yet to respond to her formal complaint made in April 2021. The Ombudsman was concerned that Ms X had yet to receive a response to her concerns and contacted the Council. As an alternative to an investigation, the Council agreed to provide Ms X with a formal stage 1 response to her complaint by 31 March 2022. The Ombudsman accepted this as a resolution to Ms X’s complaint.

Mrs X complained that a flood had caused damage to her mother’s property back in May 2021, and that there has been a delay in the Council repairing the property. The Ombudsman was concerned that Mrs X had yet to receive a stage 2 response to her complaint and contacted the Council. As an alternative to an investigation, the Council agreed to provide Mrs X with a stage 2 formal response by 31 March 2022. The Ombudsman accepted this as a resolution of Mrs X’s complaint.

Miss X complained on behalf of her mother about the findings of the Independent Investigator who was tasked with undertaking a Formal Investigation of a complaint made to Carmarthenshire County Council about various issues relating to her late grandmother. The Ombudsman found that the Independent Investigator had concluded that there were no shortfalls in communication between the Council and Miss X in respect of her grandmother’s health and welfare. In support of her complaint, Miss X provided evidence to support that her mother had not received copies of all written communication sent by the Council, which had only been sent to Miss X’s aunt. He found that this evidence contradicted the findings of the Independent Investigator. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to apologise to Miss X and her mother for its failings and to pay her redress of £250 for the time and trouble taken in her submitting a complaint.

Ms A complained that the Council had not responded or kept her informed about her complaint relating to development by her neighbour without planning permission, which impacted on her privacy. She wanted the Council to consider taking enforcement action for the unauthorised development. Whilst noting that his jurisdiction did not enable him to force the Council to take enforcement action (which is a discretionary decision), the Ombudsman was concerned about the delay in responding to Ms A’s complaint and a failure to update and communicate with her. The Council agreed to the Ombudsman’s proposal for settlement of the complaint, as an alternative to investigation. It agreed to provide Ms A with an update on her complaint by 12 November 2021, with an apology for the delay.

Mr X complained about the lack of action taken by the Planning Enforcement team in relation to his complaints to it. He was also concerned that matters had not been resolved despite his formal complaint to the Council about the delay being upheld. The Council accepted that there had been considerable delay in dealing with Mr X’s planning enforcement complaint. Action has now been taken in relation to the substance of Mr X’s complaint and to address delays within the Planning Enforcement team as a whole. The Council also agreed to formally write to Mr X, within 20 working days, to: • Explain the reasons for the lack of action by the Council between September 2019 until the present time; • Explain the details of the improvements that the Council has stated it has made in its Planning Enforcement team, and the learning points from Mr X’s complaint; • Clarify the reason for its enforcement decision (that is, the issuing of an enforcement notice rather than stop notice); • Clarify how Mr X should report any future noise issues (including confirming whether matters sit with planning enforcement or environmental health statutory nuisance processes); • Set out clear arrangements to ensure that there is proactive contact with Mr X; it should be clear at the end of each contact (email or telephone) when Mr X will next hear from the Council; • Apologise for the delay in progressing the case and the fact that an enforcement notice should have been served sooner; • Offer a time and trouble payment of £250 to reflect the extra work caused to Mr X in having to pursue his complaint.

Mr X complained about drainage difficulties and flooding at his home, which appeared to result from building works undertaken at a nearby development site following planning permission being granted by the Council. The Ombudsman found that there had been some delay by the council in deciding which department was responsible for dealing with his complaint and that a response had not been provided in accordance with its complaints policy. The Council were considering enforcement steps to address the issues. The Ombudsman sought and obtained the Council’s agreement to , within 20 working days, provide Mr X with a Stage 1 complaint response addressing the concerns raised, to include details of the Councils complaints procedure and outlining the right to escalate to stage 2 of the procedure, together with an apology for the failure to consider the complaint in accordance with the Council’s Complaint Policy. The Council also agreed to provide Mr X with details of the enforcement action that has been taken or is being considered by the Council.

Mr A complained about Carmarthenshire County Council’s handling of his complaint concerning planning enforcement on a neighbouring property. Mr A said that he felt he had been treated unfairly by the Council and that it failed to provide a timely response to his complaint. Further, it failed to act impartially in its investigation and failed to respond to all issues raised and take into account all relevant facts. The Ombudsman found that the evidence supported Mr A in that his complaint had not been investigated appropriately. He found that there appeared to be a number of omissions and discrepancies in the Council’s initial investigation of the alleged breach of planning consent and subsequently its investigation into Mr A’s complaint about these matters. The Ombudsman contacted the Council and it agreed to, within 20 working days: · Appoint an independent consultant to investigate all aspects of Mr A’s complaint, and to review Carmarthenshire County Council’s handling of the matters complained about. · Make a financial redress payment of £250 to Mr A in recognition of the avoidable time and trouble to which he had been put in pursuing his complaint. The Ombudsman was satisfied that this would provide a resolution to the issues considered in this complaint.