PSOW Individual Decisions

Miss T complained that Flintshire Council refused to accept her Stage 2 complaint against Social Services. The Ombudsman found that whilst the Council had provided a Stage 1 response it had refused to allow Miss T to escalate her complaint to the second stage of the statutory complaints procedure. She said that this caused frustration and uncertainty to Miss T. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to write to Miss T with an apology and explanation for the failure within 4 weeks and to commission and progress with an independent investigation as soon as reasonable practical.

The Ombudsman received a complaint from the Former Clerk of Buckley Town Council (“the Council”) that a Member (“the Member”) of the Council had breached the Code of Conduct. It was alleged that the Member had called for the Former Clerk’s resignation at a Council meeting which was attended by Councillors, staff and members of the public. Our finding, under section 69 of the Local Government Act 2000, was that our report on our investigation be referred to the Monitoring Officer of Flintshire County Council for consideration by its Standards Committee. The Standards Committee found that the Member had failed to comply with the Code of Conduct.  Its sanction was to suspend the Member from the Relevant Authority, as set out in the Local Government Act 2000, for 6 months.  The Standards Committee also made 4 recommendations for Town and Community Councils in Flintshire. The Standards Committee decision is available here . The Member did not appeal the decision.

Mr E complained that Flintshire County Council denied an application for school transport for his second son when it approved the application for his older son the previous academic year. The Ombudsman found that the Council failed to fully explain its decision as it did not provide important information for its denial of the second son’s application. She found this caused additional frustration and confusion to Mr E. The Ombudsman decided to investigate the complaint without an investigation. She sought and gained the Council’s agreement to write to Mr E, within 10 working days, with the information it failed to relay in its complaint response and its apology.

Mrs A complained about the length of time her mother had been waiting for Flintshire County Council to arrange a care package. She also complained that the Council had rejected her request to escalate the complaint to Stage 2 of the complaints procedure. The Ombudsman found that whilst the Council had responded to Mrs A’s complaint, it had not provided a Stage 2 response as would normally be required. The Ombudsman contacted the Council and it agreed to, within 20 working days respond in writing to the to 4 aspects of the complaint, detailed in Mrs A’s submission to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman considered this to be an appropriate resolution and did not investigate.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that a Member (“the Member”) of Flintshire County Council (“the Council”) made comments on social media which brought the Council into disrepute as he alleged that another member of the Council had been “bought”. The Ombudsman’s investigation considered whether the Member’s conduct may have breached paragraphs 4(b), 4(c) and 6(1)(a) of the Code.  Information was obtained from the Council.  Copies of the comments made on social media and evidence from Facebook were obtained.  Witness information was obtained.  The Member was interviewed. The Ombudsman’s investigation found that the Member’s comments on social media were made publicly and suggested impropriety and corruption on the part of another member of the Council.  The Ombudsman found that the Member’s comments had the potential to seriously damage his and the Council’s reputation and considered that a member of the public would reasonably have regarded the Member’s comment as an allegation of bribery or corruption on the part of a member of the Council.  She found that the Member’s comment therefore had the potential to affect the Council’s reputation and the public’s confidence in local democracy and therefore concluded that the Member’s conduct could reasonably be regarded as bringing both the Council and his office as a councillor into disrepute, in breach of paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Code. The Ombudsman also found that the Member’s comment and specific reference to a member of the Council being “bought” went beyond what was reasonable and was a serious allegation to make.  She found that, in making such a serious allegation, publicly on Facebook, the Member failed to show the complainant respect and consideration.  The Ombudsman found that the Member’s conduct was suggestive of a breach of paragraph 4(b) of the Code. The Ombudsman found that the member of the Council, at whom the comment was aimed, was clear that he did not suffer any lasting anxiety or loss of reputation a

Mr A complained about the service provided by the Council’s Childrens’ Services since November 2021. He said that the Council had declined to investigate his multi-agency complaints as matters had previously been considered by the Court. The Ombudsman found that the whilst some aspects related to other agencies and some matters had been considered in court proceedings, the Council had failed to consider and/or respond to those aspects of Mr A’s complaint that had been raised prior to proceedings being issued and which had not been considered by the Court. The Council agreed to, within 20 working days, reconsider Mr A’s complaint to establish which heads of complaints are matters which had been considered by the Court and which could be investigated and to consider additional matters Mr A had subsequently raised with the Council. The Council further agreed to provide Mr A with a formal written complaint response addressing those matters, which were not the subject of Court proceedings and the additional matters raised. The Ombudsman’s view was that the above action was reasonable to settle Mr A’s complaint.

Ms A complained that she was dissatisfied with Flintshire County Council’s (“the Council’s”) social services complaint response, and that aspects of her complaint remained unanswered. The Ombudsman found that the Council failed to inform Ms A of her right to escalate her complaint to the second stage of the statutory complaints procedure. She decided to settle the complaint without investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to apologise to Ms A, open a stage 2 complaint investigation, and review the information it provides to complainants about the social services complaints procedure. The Council agreed to undertake the action within 1 month.

Ms A complained to the Council that it had failed to appropriately assess, and meet the needs of, herself and her partner, Mr B, as carers. The Council contracted an Independent Investigator to undertake a formal Stage 2 investigation which upheld Ms A’s complaint. Ms A complained to the Ombudsman that the Council had failed to take forward the recommended actions from the Stage 2investigation to ensure she and her partner had appropriate assessments and support in place. During the evidence gathering stage of the investigation, the Ombudsman found that Ms A had a telephone carers assessment completed but had not received a copy of it. Ms A had been provided written information on services available but felt she should have received face to face support to understand it. Ms A’s carers assessment process had been closed when she did not respond following information being provided. Mr B had not been offered a separate assessment and an assumption had been made that Ms A’s assessment had covered the whole family circumstances. The Council proposed a voluntary settlement. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms A for not providing a copy of the telephone assessment she had and to ensure she had now received a copy. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr B for not offering him a separate assessment in his own right. The Council also agreed to confirm to Ms A and Mr B that they were able to access carers assessments and support, when performing a caring role, and remind them of the contact details to do this. The Ombudsman considered the actions were reasonable and proportionate to resolve the complaint and the investigation was brought to a close.

Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of social services matters concerning her son, including direct payments, assessments, and plans. The assessment found that the independent investigation commissioned at stage 2 was thorough and competent. However, there were two issues identified which did not amount to best practice. The Council therefore agreed to carry out the following actions within 2 months: 1. Revise its social services complaints procedure to include consideration of the qualifications and background of independent investigators on a case by case basis, recording its reasons for selection in those cases where complaints include elements of social work practice. 2. Revise its social services complaints procedure to include consideration of whether the child should be asked to provide input to the independent investigator and the independent person where they are the service user – including where the complaint is made by another person. The Council’s consideration in this regard would be recorded on the complaint file.

Mr X complained that he had asked the Council (as his landlord) for permission to erect a potting shed/greenhouse, art studio and fencing at his property. In his view, the Council had first agreed then refused him permission. Having erected the buildings, he was then threatened with enforcement action to remove them. He felt he was being discriminated against as other neighbours had sheds at their properties. On considering the information provided by the Council, it showed that it was unaware of other neighbours having built sheds but, now that it was, it was considering enforcement action against them. It said what Mr X had erected contravened the size and location dimensions that might have been agreed initially (which it said had been explained to him in site visits). He had built structures beyond that. Moreover, fencing was prohibited around the land due to a legal restrictive covenant against enclosing it, as verified by its legal department. The Ombudsman concluded that it was not for her to make findings of discrimination, albeit it did not appear Mr X was being treated differently from others. There were legal reasons why she could not find the Council’s actions to be unreasonable – there were different laws at play, and it was not within her jurisdiction to make legal findings as to which prevailed. She agreed that the Council’s correspondence had been confusing to Mr X, and at times, contradictory from different officers. As an alternative to an investigation, the Council agreed (within 14 days) to apologise in writing to Mr X for the lack of clarity on its position and decisions, and for the time and trouble this had caused to Mr X in complaining to the Ombudsman.

Mr X complained that the Council had failed to take appropriate and timely action in relation to non-compliance with a notice that it served on his neighbour to remedy the condition of their land. He also complained that the Council had failed to respond to his emails with any specific information or substantial update on the case. Following the start of an investigation by the Ombudsman, the Council proposed to take the following action to move the matter forward. The Council agreed to write to the neighbour to reinforce the need to comply with the notice within 3 months. In this respect, the Council considered it appropriate to allow the neighbour a final opportunity to comply with the notice and the letter would make clear that the Council reserved the right to pursue more formal enforcement action, including direct action and/or the commencement of a criminal investigation, if there was no compliance within the set timescale. The Council also agreed to write to Mr X to apologise for the delays in communicating with him promptly and to reassure him that the Council continued to engage with the neighbour to secure compliance with the notice. It also agreed to offer Mr X a payment of £100 in recognition of the time and trouble incurred in pursuing his complaint with the Ombudsman. The Council agreed to undertake all of these actions within 1 month. The Council also agreed to provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it had carried out a review oft he case and its position after the 3 month time limit given to the neighbour had elapsed. The Ombudsman considered these actions to be reasonable and so discontinued the investigation on the basis that the complaint had been settled.

Mr X complained about Flintshire County Council’s (The Council) Stage 2 Complaint Response. Mr X disagreed with the decisions taken by the Council in relation to planning and enforcement matters. He said that the Stage 2 Complaint Response did not address all matters he had complained about and was unhappy with the timeliness of the complaint response being provided. The Ombudsman found that there no evidence of maladministration in relation to the planning and enforcement decisions. However, the Ombudsman was concerned that the Stage 2 Response failed to address one part of Mr X’s complaint. As an alternative to an investigation, the Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to, within 20 working days, provide Mr X with a further Stage 2 Complaint Response dealing with the second location that Mr X had complained about and to provide a written apology for its failure to address this aspect of the complaint. The Ombudsman was satisfied that this would provide a resolution to the issues considered in this complaint.

Mr A complained about the failure by Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board (“the Health Board”) and Flintshire County Council (“the Council”) to tell him in a timely manner that the multi-disciplinary team’s recommendation for NHS Funded Continuing Health Care (“CHC”) which would have covered the cost of his wife’s care home fees was disputed by the Health Board’s CHC Panel. Mr A was also dissatisfied with the Health Board and the Council’s complaint handling and the robustness of their complaint response. Finally, Mr A was unhappy with the Council’s role in his wife’s discharge planning from hospital and the funding of her care at the care home. The Ombudsman’s investigation found that failings in both the Health Board and the Council’s processes had contributed to Mrs A, who has end stage dementia and lacks mental capacity, having an outstanding social care debt of £19,787.51. The Ombudsman upheld Mr A’s complaint about not being told by both the Health Board and the Council in a timely manner of the disputed CHC funding and the failings regarding complaint handling. The Ombudsman also concluded that in terms of Mrs A’s discharge planning and funding, the Council should have ensured that Mr A was made aware of the financial implications of chargeable social care costs, in the event that CHC funding was not put in place. It should also have discussed with Mr A, prior to Mrs A’s discharge, the need to complete a financial assessment that would have reduced the chargeable social care costs Mrs A subsequently incurred. This part of Mr A’s complaint was also upheld. The Ombudsman considered that Mr A had been caused an injustice by the Council and the Health Board’s failings as it added to Mr A’s stress and anxiety. Although the Ombudsman is not able to make definitive findings of breach he considered that Mr and Mrs A’s Article 8 rights had been engaged, in that Mr A’s time with his wife had been blighted by the stress of dealing with the enormity of the debt that h

Mr A complained about the failure by Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board (“the Health Board”) and Flintshire County Council (“the Council”) to tell him in a timely manner that the multi-disciplinary team’s recommendation for NHS Funded Continuing Health Care (“CHC”) which would have covered the cost of his wife’s care home fees was disputed by the Health Board’s CHC Panel. Mr A was also dissatisfied with the Health Board and the Council’s complaint handling and the robustness of their complaint response. Finally, Mr A was unhappy with the Council’s role in his wife’s discharge planning from hospital and the funding of her care at the care home. The Ombudsman’s investigation found that failings in both the Health Board and the Council’s processes had contributed to Mrs A, who has end stage dementia and lacks mental capacity, having an outstanding social care debt of £19,787.51. The Ombudsman upheld Mr A’s complaint about not being told by both the Health Board and the Council in a timely manner of the disputed CHC funding and the failings regarding complaint handling. The Ombudsman also concluded that in terms of Mrs A’s discharge planning and funding, the Council should have ensured that Mr A was made aware of the financial implications of chargeable social care costs, in the event that CHC funding was not put in place. It should also have discussed with Mr A, prior to Mrs A’s discharge, the need to complete a financial assessment that would have reduced the chargeable social care costs Mrs A subsequently incurred. This part of Mr A’s complaint was also upheld. The Ombudsman considered that Mr A had been caused an injustice by the Council and the Health Board’s failings as it added to Mr A’s stress and anxiety. Please Note: Summaries are prepared for all reports issued by the Ombudsman. This summary may be displayed on the Ombudsman’s website and may be included in publications issued by the Ombudsman and/or in other media. If you wish to discuss the use of this

Mr A & Ms B complained about flooding at their home which they said was caused by an adjacent supermarket car park (and contributed to by run off water from neighbouring properties). They believed that the Council had owned the land upon which the car park was constructed, and so should bear responsibility for the drainage issues. The Council noted that it did not own it and could not involve itself in private landowner matters. Later, on advice from its legal department, it agreed to consider the matter under its common land management powers given some evidence of historical ownership. This would involve liaison with the water authority to agree and implement an infrastructure improvement plan, which would take time. Owing to jurisdictional constraints, the Ombudsman could not get involved in private landowner issues or determine liability for flooding problems. The water authority is also not within his jurisdiction. However, the Ombudsman sought the Council’s agreement to the following in order to provide clarity for Mr A & Ms B, and as an alternative to investigating complaint handling aspects of the complaint: • The Council to use its best endeavours to commit to seek a resolution of the flooding issue (engaging as necessary with the water authority and relevant third parties) as soon as practicably possible. • The Council to provide Mr A & Ms B with 6 weekly updates.

Mrs X complained that despite previous complaints submitted to the Council, and monitoring put in place, waste was still not being collected regularly at her father, Mr Y’s, address. He had an arranged Assisted Lift Collection service in place. The Ombudsman was concerned about the continued missed collections that had been ongoing for a number of years, despite going through the complaints procedure and actions previously put in place, and that Mrs X and Mr Y, had been 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 undertake the following actions: • Provide Mrs X with a written apology for the continuing issues and having to bring her complaint to the Ombudsman. • Request that the supervisors place Mr Y’s address on the monitoring sheets for the next 5 collections. • Request that the supervisors attend the address at the same time the collections take place for 12 weeks (from the date of the Ombudsman’s letter) and they confirm to the Senior Manager that the collection has taken place. • Review processes within the Service Delivery Department to ensure that all staff involved respond to complaints in a timely manner. The Council agreed to undertake the above actions within 2 weeks, by 17 February 2022. • Review the process for Assisted Lift Collections and provide staff with further training on the Assisted Lift Process. The Council agreed to undertake the above action within 6 weeks, by 17 March 2022.

Mr X complained that the Council had failed to provide him with a stage two response to his complaint. In considering the complaint the Ombudsman was concerned about the delays and that Mr X had been inconvenienced by the Council’s failure to provide a response. As an alternative to an investigation, he asked the Council to complete the following in settlement of Mr X’s complaint: a) Apologise to Mr X for the delay in responding to his complaint b) Provide Mr X with a stage two complaint response c) Provide Mr X with a financial payment of £50 in recognition of the delays

Mrs X said that the Council had arranged for a surveyor from the Valuation Office to visit her property to evaluate the impact a neighbour’s conservatory had on the value of her home. She said that, despite having had contact with the Council in September, she had not received a substantive update and the matter had been ongoing since March. The Ombudsman found that there had been a delay on the part of the Council in providing a substantive update to Mrs X. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to provide a substantive update and an apology for the delay. It also agreed to provide a firm timescale and commitment as to when the matter would be resolved, to include a likely timescale on the work of the surveyor. The Council agreed to provide Mrs X with this information within 20 working days.

Mr X complained that the Council had ignored his emails and had not dealt with his complaint relating to the disposal of a mattress appropriately. In considering the complaint the Ombudsman was concerned that despite the Council informing Mr X that it had escalated a complaint, his concerns had not been logged formally. As an alternative to an investigation he asked the Council to complete the following in settlement of Mr X’s complaint, a) Apologise to Mr X for failing to record his concerns formally as a complaint b) Provide Mr X with a formal complaint response

Mr X complained that the Council had not responded to a formal complaint he raised in August 2021 regarding its planning department. The Ombudsman was concerned about the length of time it was taking the Council to conclude Step 1 of its complaint process, consequently delaying the Step 2 process. The Council therefore agreed to undertake the following in settlement of this complaint: 1. Escalate Mr X’s complaint to Step 2 of its process with immediate effect and issue its response no later than 17 December 2021, with its apologies. 2. Issue a time and trouble payment of £100 no later than 17 December 2021.

Mr X complained that the Council allowed a takeaway to open in an unsafe and unsuitable location. While considering this complaint the Ombudsman noted that Mr X raised a formal complaint with the Council in April 2021 but had not received an initial (Step 1) response to his complaint. At the Ombudsman’s request, the Council has agreed to escalate the complaint to the next stage of the procedure, and to issue a full Step 2 complaint response no later than 23 December.

Ms X complained about the contractor’s use of a single track lane undergoing works/development on behalf of the Council. While considering this complaint the Ombudsman noted that Ms X raised a formal complaint with the Council on 10 August 2021 but had not received a Step 1 response. The Council has therefore agreed to escalate the complaint to Step 2 and issue a full Step 2 complaint response no later than 23 December.

Mrs X complained that her mother was receiving an inadequate home care service from the Council. She also complained that she had not received a response to her complaint, which she submitted to the Council in August 2021. The Ombudsman decided that the Council should provide Mrs X with a substantive written response (within 3 weeks) to address her concerns. The response should also offer an apology, remedial action and an explanation as to why Mrs X’s complaint was not dealt with sooner. A financial redress payment should also be considered for her inconvenience and in having to approach the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman considered this to be an appropriate resolution to the complaint instead of conducting an investigation.

Mrs C complained about a social worker from Flintshire Council who had been involved with her family in 2020. Mrs C said that the social worker was rude to her and her family, asked questions that were not relevant to what was being considered, and made mistakes in her report. Mrs C said that when her case progressed to a conference she was told that she only needed educational support for her son and the involvement of social services was not necessary. The Ombudsman found that while the Council had responded to Mrs C’s concerns when she made them in 2020, there were some issues she had raised to the Ombudsman that the Council had not considered. The Council agreed that it could have been clearer in explaining to Mrs C how to progress her complaint if she was unhappy with the response. The Council agreed to respond to Mrs C addressing her outstanding concerns within 20 working days.

Mrs A complained on her own behalf and on behalf of her husband, Mr A, about Flintshire County Council (“the Council”). She said that the Council had refused to allow her to attend Child Protection meetings with Mr A, as his advocate. Consequently, Mr A had not been updated about ongoing matters since or seen his children for some time. Mrs A said that, as their step-mother, she had also not seen the children for some time and that she had been unhappy with the Council’s initial response to her complaints. The Ombudsman considered his role and felt that the matter was capable of being resolved without his investigation, in light of there being an additional statutory stage to a complaint about social services’ matters (an independent Stage 2 investigation).[1] He therefore invited the Council to resolve the matter by undertaking the following actions (which it agreed to do): · To make arrangements (within 1 month) to commence a Stage 2 Investigation into Mrs A’s complaint. · To provide Mrs A with a Stage 2 complaint response within 14 days of its completion. [1] Social Services Complaints Procedure (Wales) Regulations 2014