PSOW Individual Decisions

Mr X complained that the Council did not respond to his request to escalate his Environmental Health complaint to Stage 2 of its complaint process. The Ombudsman contacted the Council, and it agreed to provide a response to Mr X’s complaint by 8 November 2022. It also agreed to apologise to Mr X for the delay and issue a time and trouble payment of £50. The Ombudsman accepted this as an alternative to investigating the complaint.

Mr X complained that he had not received a response from the Council following his emails or complaint about a cycle barrier that prevents disabled access. The Ombudsman found that the Council had failed to respond to his emails and had not issued a complaint response. The Council agreed to complete the following in settlement of Mr X’s complaint by 24 October 2022, as an alternative to the Ombudsman investigating it: a) Write to Mr X to provide an explanation and apology for the failure to respond to his emails b) provide Mr X with a further explanation and apology for the failure to respond to his complaint c) Make a £25 time and trouble payment to Mr X for having to raise his complaint with the Council and the Ombudsman d) Issue a complaint response.

Mr & Mrs X complained about various issues surrounding a shared access lane and school site adjacent to their home, including maintenance issues and alleged planning breaches. The Ombudsman found that many of the issues raised concerned matters which occurred between 3 and 8 years prior to the complaint being made to him and so he declined to consider these. However, the Ombudsman considered there were a number of more recent issues which would benefit from a formal written response from the Council. The Council, therefore, agreed to confirm with Mr & Mrs X the issues, from May 2020 onwards, which they considered to remain outstanding and to, within 20 working days of agreeing the heads of complaint, provide a formal written response under Stage 2 of its Corporate Complaints procedure. The Ombudsman considered this to represent an appropriate resolution and so did not investigate the complaint.

Mr A complained about the lack of clear communication regarding the Council’s arrangements for school transport for his son to attend college. He also complained that the Council failed to investigate the issues he raised in his complaint to it about its failures. The Ombudsman found that the Council had not addressed and answered the issues originally complained of by Mr A. These were contained in an email between him and the Council, dated 2 September 2021. This had resulted in a failure to answer the issues raised during an investigation at stage 1 and 2 of its complaints procedure, The Ombudsman contacted the Council and it has agreed to; a) Re-visit the complainant’s email to the Council on 2 September 2021 (identified by the Ombudsman), which appears to provide more details of his complaint. b) Contact the complainant by telephone to confirm any outstanding issues not addressed from the email and the subsequent complaint investigation by the Council. c) Investigate and provide him with a written letter of response covering the outstanding issues. This should be completed within 30 working days of the date of my decision letter.

Mr A complained that Neath Port Talbot Council (“the Council”) had failed to act or respond to his concerns about noise and harassment issues. He also said the Council had failed to provide information in accordance with his Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOI) request. The Ombudsman noted that complaints about FOI matters are not for him and directed Mr A to the Information Commissioner’s office. However, he was concerned that Mr A had not received a fulsome complaint response on the substantive issues, and that his concerns had yet to be considered under Stage 2 of the Council’s corporate complaints process. Accordingly, as an alternative to investigation, the Ombudsman contacted the Council and it agreed to undertake the following actions: · Escalate Mr A’s complaints to a Stage 2 investigation · Provide Mr A with its Stage 2 response within 1 month.

Mrs X complained regarding the handling of a planning application by Neath Port Talbot Council (“the Council”) for a garage in close proximity to her home. The Ombudsman’s assessment identified concerns regarding the handling of the complaint; the information provided to Mrs X and the inconvenience caused by the Council’s actions. As a result of the identified concerns the Council has agreed to undertake the following by 15 October 2021 in settlement of Mrs X’s complaint: • Provide a stage 2 complaint response • Pay £100 to acknowledge the inconvenience

The Ombudsman received a self-referred complaint that a Member (“the Member”) of Neath Port Talbot Council (“the Council”) had breached the Code of Conduct (“the Code”) in respect of comments he had made during a private Labour Party meeting during October 2019.  The comments were secretly recorded and later published on social media on 5 March 2021. The Ombudsman began an investigation of some of the comments made and considered whether the Member had breached the following paragraphs of the Code: 6(1)(a) – members must not conduct themselves in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing their office or authority into disrepute. 7(b)(v) – members must not use or authorise others to use, the resources of their authority improperly for political purposes. In the recording, the Member commented on school reorganisation.  The investigation found that comments made about the relocation of a particular school appeared to have been made in the context of a report that identified that the school was at risk of being affected by a landslide.  The comments were based on independent professional advice and were therefore not likely to amount to a breach of the Code. The Member also made general comments about the Council’s school reorganisation plans.  Whilst the Member clearly expressed his preliminary views on the matter, he did not appear to discount the possibility of other options.  Neither did he indicate that he would not be willing to consider the advice of appropriate officers.  That being so, the comments did not amount to a breach of the Code. During the recording, the Member suggested that he would refuse funding for a proposal supported by another political party in favour of a contradicting Labour proposal and, in doing so, referred to his involvement in the repair of a cemetery road in Ystalyfera.  The decision to fund the work on the road was made by the Council’s Capital Programme Steering Group.  Whilst the Member was copied into correspondence,

Miss X complained about a lack of clarity about the level of direct payments for her son during the school closures due to COVID-19, as well as delays in payments being made. She also complained that she had not been updated about the recommendations made in a report on her complaint under stage 2 of the statutory social services procedure. The Ombudsman noted that, whilst the Council had formulated an Action Plan to implement to stage 2 report’s recommendations, it had not shared this with Miss X or updated her about its actions. The Ombudsman would expect complainants to be told about action taken as a result of their complaint. The Council therefore agreed to the following actions, by 21 May: a) To provide the complainant with a copy of the Action Plan and confirm what the Council has done to achieve those actions. b) To provide an apology to the complainant for not updating her about the action taken concerning the recommendations on her complaint. c) To invite the complainant to be part of the interest group on direct payments if she wishes to do so. d) To update the Ombudsman on the Action Plan and provide the Ombudsman with a copy of its update to the complainant.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that a member (“the Member”) of Clyne & Melincourt Community Council (“the Community Council”) had breached the Code of Conduct (“the Code”). It was alleged the Member had failed in his duty to uphold the law by removing pedestrian safety railings without the express permission of Neath Port Talbot Council (“the Council”), and in so doing, created a health and safety risk for the local community. The Ombudsman’s Office started an investigation to consider paragraphs 6(1)(a) (disrepute) and 7(a) (misuse of position) of the Code.  Information was obtained from the Community Council, the Council and South Wales Police (“the Police”).  Comments and copies of relevant social media posts were provided by the Complainant and a witness.  The Member provided written and verbal comments. The investigation found that at the time of the events the Member was Chair of the Community Council and had taken it upon himself (without any reference to the Community Council or the Council) to remove the railings because of his concerns about community safety.  Following the Council’s intervention, the railings were swiftly returned and reinstated, the Member apologised, and reimbursed the Council for associated costs, and the Council took no consequent legal action.  The Police investigated the matter and ultimately decided no further action would be taken. The Ombudsman found the Member’s actions were suggestive of a breach of 6(1)(a) of the Code.  The Ombudsman found that as the Member was acting in his own right at the time and without the knowledge of the Community Council, the evidence was not suggestive of a breach of paragraph 7(a). The Ombudsman concluded that whilst the Member’s conduct may be suggestive of disrepute, his clarification that he was acting in his own right, his recognition of wrong doing, contrition and apologies, his acknowledgement and co-operation in rectifying the situation and the lack of outcome from the Police investigati