PSOW Individual Decisions

Mr A complained that the Council held incorrect information about his business which was provided to prospective buyers when selling his property. He said this resulted in the loss of 2 sales and a substantial financial loss due to a reduced sale price. He also complained about the handling of his Freedom of Information (FOI) request, and that he had received no response to his recent correspondence. The Ombudsman did not consider there was evidence that the Council held or had provided, incorrect information or that the information requested under FOI would have altered the outcome. Any issues about the FOI request were primarily for the Information Commissioner’s Office to consider. However, she was concerned that Mr A’s more recent correspondence had not been responded to, which the Council had accepted was due to its omission, because of capacity issues within its service. The Ombudsman was satisfied that the Council had already taken action to address the capacity issues. She sought and obtained the Council’s agreement to respond to the outstanding correspondence within 10 working days.

The Ombudsman received a self-referred complaint from a Member (“the Former Member”) of Ceredigion County Council (“the Council”), that they had breached the Council’s Code of Conduct for members. The Member said that during a discussion at a public Council meeting about Welsh Ambulance Service NHS Trust (“WAST”) provision in Ceredigion, they had made inappropriate comments about “incomers” to the county and “immigrants” being allowed into Wales by the Welsh Government and the potential impact on those services. The Ombudsman’s investigation considered whether the Former Member’s conduct may have breached paragraphs 4(a), 4(b) and 6(1)(a) of the Council’s Code of Conduct. Information was obtained from the Council including a transcript of what the Former Member had said in the meeting, minutes of Council meetings, and comments from the Former Member. The Ombudsman found that following the incident the Former Member had stepped down from their political party to sit as an independent member. During the investigation the Former Member stood in the election on 5 May 2022 and was not returned by the local electorate. In comments to the Council and the Ombudsman, the Former Member said the remarks had been inappropriate and taken in a way not intended. The Ombudsman found that the Former Member’s remarks did not extend to gratuitous or personal comment or hate speech and would not have been interpreted as representative of the views of the Council. As such, they would not have amounted to a breach of paragraphs 4(a) or 6(1)(a) of the Code of Conduct. The Ombudsman determined, however, that they could be considered divisive and disrespectful, and suggestive of a breach of paragraph 4(b) in failing to show respect and consideration for others. The Ombudsman considered that, as the Former Member’s role was ultimately decided by the local electorate and they were no longer a member of the Council, any sanction which could be given if a breach of the Code of Conduct was found

Mrs X complained that the Council had failed to provide the necessary equipment for her disabled daughter and had not responded to her complaint about the matter. The Council confirmed to the Ombudsman that it had failed to provide regular and meaningful updates to Mrs X and had not issued a complaint response. It agreed to complete the following in settlement of Mrs X’s complaint, by 26 August 2022: a) Provide Mrs X with an explanation and apology for the failure to provide regular and meaningful updates b) Provide an apology for the delay in managing her complaint c) Provide a complaint response d) Pay Mrs X £100 for her time and trouble in pursuing her complaint.

Miss X complained about the way the Council had handled her concerns about reports of noise nuisance. The Ombudsman found that the Council had failed to investigate or provide a response to Miss X’s latest concerns. The Council agreed to complete the following in settlement of Miss X’s complaint, by 19 August 2022, as an alternative to the Ombudsman investigating it: a) Provide Miss X with an apology for the delay in responding to her concerns and open a new planning enforcement investigation file b) Provide an explanation for the delay c) Commit to commencing an investigation by early August 2022 and provide a response containing its findings.

Mr A complained on behalf of his son, Mr B, who lives in a residential home for adults with additional needs. The other residents of the house receive support from a Support Service (“the Support Service”) which is funded by the Council. Mr A complained that a staff member from the Support Service visited the home and assisted the residents to complete their census form while in a group, and Mr B felt pressured into providing personal information in front of the other residents. The Council’s Social Services department contracted an Independent Investigator to undertake a formal Stage 2 Investigation, which resulted in several recommendations, including that the Support Service staff member should be removed from supporting the individuals within the home, and that a full safeguarding investigation should take place to establish (in light of comments made by the staff member during the course of the investigation) whether there was bullying within the house. The Council’s Stage 2 complaint response referred to these recommendations. It said that a referral had been made to the Council’s safeguarding service, but stated that it could not influence how the Support Service managed its staff. It later confirmed to the Ombudsman that a Professional Concerns Meeting had taken place under the All Wales Safeguarding Procedures which concluded that a full safeguarding investigation would not be warranted or proportionate. Mr A complained to the Ombudsman that the Council had not followed the recommendations made by the Independent Investigator, and had not told him of the decision that a full safeguarding investigation would not take place. During the evidence gathering stage of the Ombudsman’s investigation, the Council proposed a voluntary settlement that included arranging formal meetings between the Council and the Support Service to discuss the complaint and between the Council and Mr A and Mr B, to explain its safeguarding decision, discuss any additional measures that

Mrs X complained about the way the Council had handled her complaint about a retrospective planning application. Mrs X said that she had not received any updates or a complaint response from the Council. The Council acknowledged that it had not provided Mrs X with updates on the progression of her complaint. The Council agreed to complete the following in settlement of Mrs X’s complaint by 29 July 2022, as an alternative to the Ombudsman investigating it: a) Provide Mrs X with an apology for failing to provide regular and meaningful updates b) Provide an explanation for this oversight c) Provide a Stage 2 complaint response.

Ms X complained that the Council failed to carry out appropriate and necessary assessments of her sister’s learning disability . The Ombudsman noted that while the Council had investigated Ms X’s concerns, it had not responded to additional queries she had raised following the conclusion of the investigation. The Council agreed to issue a further response by 1 July 2022.

Ms X complained about the Council’s response to the complaints that she had raised with it. The complaints related to Council Tax and Planning matters. The Ombudsman found that the Council had responded appropriately to the complaints about Council Tax, but that the response on the Planning matters remained outstanding. The Council therefore agreed to provide a formal written response to Ms X on the outstanding planning matters by 31 May 2022.

Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his complaint about a noise nuisance from a commercial sandblasting business. Mr X said that he had made 2 complaints to the Council. Mr X said that he had made 2 complaints to the Council. Whilst Mr X appreciated that the Council had acknowledged his latest complaint the Council had failed to provide a complaint response. The Council confirmed that the correct process had not been followed in relation to Mr X’s complaint. The Council agreed to complete the following in settlement of Mr X’s complaint by 31 May 2022, as an alternative to the Ombudsman investigating it: a) Provide Mr X with an apology for failing to provide regular and meaningful updates and a complaint response b) Provide Mr X with an explanation for this oversight c) Provided assurances that processes will be reviewed to prevent this happening again d) Provide Mr X with a Stage 2 complaint response in relation to his substantive concerns.

Mrs N complained that the Council failed to close down a safeguarding case and inform a youth organisation, where Mrs N volunteered and worked, of the outcome after the investigation concluded. She said that although she contacted the Council a number of times about this, some of her correspondence received no response and no action was taken until a year later. This prevented Mrs N from returning to her role with the youth organisation. Mrs N also said that the Council failed to address her concerns appropriately when she raised a formal complaint. The Ombudsman found that the staff member responsible for the delays and for overlooking Mrs N’s correspondence had taken full personal responsibility for these failures. However, the Council’s final complaint response was delayed, which compounded Mrs N’s concerns about staff acting promptly and appropriately on correspondence. Additionally, the Council should have done more to reassure Mrs N that the impact on her had been fully appreciated and to demonstrate that the Council had taken corporate responsibility for the maladministration that occurred. The Council agreed to write to Mrs N to provide a corporate apology, including an explanation of what actions it had taken to address the cause of the problems in this case, and to demonstrate that it has taken corporate responsibility for the maladministration identified. It also agreed to offer Mrs N £725 in recognition of the injustice that she could not return to the youth organisation, her time and trouble following up on her case, and its poor complaints handling. It agreed to complete these actions within 1 month.

Ms X complained that the Council had failed to investigate and respond to her complaint about an increase in nursing home fees. In considering the complaint, the Ombudsman was concerned that the Council had not responded to Ms X despite informing her in August 2021 that enquiries were being made. As an alternative to an investigation, the Ombudsman asked the Council to complete the following in settlement of Ms X’s complaint: By 21 April 2022, a) Provide Ms X with an apology for failing to respond b) Provide Ms X with a full response to her email

Miss X complained that the Council failed to respond to her complaint about social services , and further failed to respond to her letters. The Ombudsman decided that the Council should contact Miss X (within 5 days) to establish if she would like her complaint dealt with at stage 1 or 2 of the social services complaints procedure. Thereafter, it should handle Miss X’s complaint in accordance with the statutory timeframes. It should also apologise to Miss X for failing to respond to her letters. The Ombudsman considered this to be an appropriate resolution to the complaint instead of conducting an investigation.

Miss X complained that the Council failed to meet her son and her child’s needs. Miss X was also unhappy that a stage 2 investigation was not carried out in a timely manner after a request was put to the Council. The Ombudsman was concerned that the Council had not escalated Miss X’s complaint to a stage 2 investigation (under the Social Services Complaints Regulations) when requested, and contacted the Council to resolve this. The Ombudsman therefore asked the Council to issue Miss X with an apology for not escalating her complaint on request, and to appoint an Independent Investigation Officer to undertake a stage 2 investigation. The Council agreed by 28 February to: (i) apologise to Miss X for failing to escalate her complaint and (ii) to escalate Miss X’s complaint to stage 2 and to appoint an Independent Investigation Officer to undertake the investigation.

Mr X complained that the Council failed to communicate progress about enforcement action in a timely manner. Mr X also complained about a lack of response to his complaint letter sent to the Council in June 2021. The Ombudsman decided that the Council should contact Mr X to discuss his complaint and obtain as necessary a copy of his complaint letter. It will then issue its formal (“stage two”) response in line with its internal complaint process within 20 working days. The Ombudsman considered this to be an appropriate resolution to the complaint instead of conducting an investigation.

Mr X complained that the Council had not responded to his complaint submitted to it in April 2021 regarding issues with his council tax payments. The Ombudsman decided that the Council should provide Mr X with a stage two response (within 3 weeks) which should include an explanation for the delay. The Council will also perform an assessment to determine whether Mr X has lost out financially because of the delay. It will also consider a time and trouble payment for having to follow up on this matter and for contacting the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman considered this to be an appropriate resolution to the complaint instead of conducting an investigation.

Mr X complained that Ceredigion County Council (“the Council”) had failed to undertake a timely assessment of an alleged planning breach and to, if appropriate, take enforcement action. The Ombudsman contacted the Council and secured its agreement to, by no later than 1 November 2021, both respond to the complainant about its findings in respect of the alleged breach, and to offer both an explanation of and apology for the delay in doing so.

Mr X complained that Ceredigion County Council (“the Council”), acting as planning authority, had failed to take enforcement action regarding an unauthorised development on neighbouring land, which he reported in 2019. The Council had then (in 2020), granted retrospective planning consent which it later confirmed to be an error on its part (as it had intended to refuse the application). Since, Mr X said that the landowner had been allowed additional time by the Council to acquire further land to meet the terms of the permission granted, but had seemingly not done so within the time permitted. Mr X further complained that the Council had failed to keep him informed and had failed to explain to him why it had not taken further action against the developer for failing to acquire the land or what it proposed to do. In considering the complaint, the Ombudsman acknowledged the error that the Council accepted had happened. He was concerned about the delay that had since occurred as well as the lack of update information provided to Mr X. He considered this to amount to maladministration and to be a serious injustice to Mr X, given he had first raised concerns in 2019. Recognising his jurisdictional limitations in planning matters (in that he cannot question professional judgement, or direct the Council to take enforcement action), the Ombudsman considered the complaint capable of being resolved on the basis of the following action, as an alternative to investigation. The Council agreed, within 1 month to: (a) Apologise in writing to Mr X (through a Senior Officer) for the maladministration that had occurred. (b) Provide Mr X (separately or combined within the above) with a detailed explanation as to what had happened since the Council’s decision to allow time for land acquisition, and how the issue is to be determined and brought to a conclusion. (c) Offer Mr X redress in the total sum of £1,500 for the injustice caused to him by the maladministration, as well as his time

Miss X complained that the Council had not provided her with a responseto her Social Services complaint which had been submitted to it in November2020. The Ombudsman wasconcerned that Miss X had not received a formal response to her complaint andthat she had been inconvenienced by the Council’s actions. He decided to settle thecomplaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to: • Provide Miss X with an apology for the delay in responding to her complaint • Provide Miss X with an explanation for the delay • Provide Miss X with a complaint response • Offer Miss X £200 in recognition for the time and trouble in making her complaint The Council agreed to complete the recommendations within 2 weeks.

Mrs A complained about Ceredigion County Council’s actions in relation to planning and enforcement issues in relation a housing development on land adjacent to her home and in particular, that the ground levels had been raised. Mrs A further complained about delays in complaint handling, the Council’s poor communication and that questions raised were not fully answered. The Ombudsman found that there was insufficient evidence of maladministration in the planning or enforcement process to warrant investigation. There appeared to be unexplained delay in the complaints handling process but an apology had already been provided by the Council. However, the complaint response lacked detail and explanation about how the decision had been reached and the Council had not responded to additional questions raised by Mrs A. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. He sought and gained the Council’s agreement to provide Mrs A, within 20 working days, with a fuller complaint response, addressing the specific concerns raised with the planning department including a better explanation as how to the ground levels were calculated, a written response to the queries raised with the Complaints Department by and an apology for the Council’s failure to address the supplementary questions raised.

Mr X complained about the delay in the Council responding to his complaint and Freedom of Information request (“FOI”), submitted to it in March and April 2021 respectively. The Ombudsman decided that within 20 working days the Council should provide a response to Mr X’s complaint and an update in respect of his FOI request. The Ombudsman considered this to be an appropriate resolution to the complaint.

Miss X complained that Ceredigion County Council (“the Council”) failed to address her complaint about Social Services in a timely manner. In considering Miss X’s complaint, the Ombudsman was concerned about the significant delays in responding to her complaint, that she had not received a response, and was inconvenienced by the Council’s actions. He decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to: • Offer Miss X a ‘time and trouble’ payment of £150. • Provide Miss X with a formal apology for the failures identified in relation to the handling of her complaint. • Investigate her complaint in accordance with the the Social Services complaints procedure. The Council agreed to carry out these action within 4 weeks.

Ms X complained that the Council had not responded to her concerns regarding the care she had been providing to her friends. Ms X said that support she had requested had not been supplied. The assessment found that the Council had not formally responded to Ms X’s complaint. The Council agreed to do so but would first contact the complainant, within 10 working days, to clarify her complaint. The Council agreed to provide an update to this office on its progress with formal consideration of the complaint within 20 working days. The Council also agreed to identify any social care needs that the complainant or her friends had (subject to the necessary consents) and to take steps to put in place any appropriate support services as soon as possible.

Mr X complained that his computer equipment, which had previously been provided following the Council’s assessment of his needs, was no longer fit for purpose. The Ombudsman noted that Mr X had mentioned that he was also homeless and no longer resident in the Council’s area due to his safeguarding concerns about them, but was seeking a reassessment of his needs. The Ombudsman was concerned that there was a lack of clarity around whether Mr X intended to return to the Council’s area and correspondingly whether there was a duty to assess him and consider his homelessness. The Ombudsman considered that it was reasonable for Mr X to confirm his intention about returning to the Council’s area, before considering whether there had been maladministration by the Council. The Ombudsman considered that the matter was open to early resolution, once this had been confirmed by Mr X. This would confirm whether the Council had a duty towards Mr X. If it did, the Ombudsman was pleased to note that the Council agreed within 8 weeks to commence a reassessment of Mr X’s needs (including communication needs) and as part of this, consider his homelessness status.