PSOW Individual Decisions

Mr X complained about Newport City Council’s decision to impose charges for social care provided to his son within his educational setting. He said that the care his son received in college was part of his educational provision when he was awarded a placement of an all-inclusive needs programme. Further, Mr X said that no other inclusive student was paying social care contributions to attend the college. The Ombudsman found that the Council had declined to investigate Mr X’s complaint in accordance with its complaints process as it said that Mr X had informed it that he intended to take legal action, and that its review process had provided Mr X with significant information about the charges. However, whilst the review process had sought to address the amount Mr X’s son was eligible to pay, it had not addressed why he was paying anything at all. Further, given Mr X’s circumstances, the Ombudsman was not persuaded that legal action was an option for him. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to investigate and formally respond to Mr X’s complaint about the financial charges, referencing the legislation and/or policies it had adhered to in reaching its decision to impose them, within 20 working days.

Miss X complained that her recycling waste had not been collected on several occasions. She also complained that the Council had not responded to her complaint. The Ombudsman decided that the Council should undertake an immediate complaint investigation and provide Miss X with a written response (within 3 weeks) to explain what had happened, action taken, and what action it proposed to take in redress. The Ombudsman considered this to be an appropriate resolution to the complaint instead of conducting an investigation.

Ms A complained that Newport City Council did not acknowledge her request for a disabled parking bay and it was delayed in responding to her subsequent letters, including a letter of complaint. Ms A said that contrary to the Council stating that its Highways Department had written to her, she had not received any correspondence from that department. The Ombudsman found that the Council failed to acknowledge and respond to Ms A’s letters in a timely manner, and it was unable to explain what happened to them over a period of several months. There was evidence that the Highways Department had drafted a letter to Ms A, but it was unclear if it was sent. The Ombudsman found there was a lack of information available on the Council’s website about the disabled parking bay application process. The Council’s failure to respond to Ms A in a timely manner, resulted in the opportunity for her application to be considered, being delayed by 1 year. He decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to : within 10 working days, apologise to Ms A, pay her redress of £125 and provide her with a clear explanation of how and when she can submit an application, within 1 month, to publish permanent information on its website about the disabled parking bay application process, and within 2 months, undertake a review of its internal postal system. If Ms A’s future application is successful, the Council agreed that within 1 month of its decision, it would consider further financial redress, to acknowledge the injustice caused and the impact of the delay in the provision of a disabled parking bay.

Ms A complained that Newport City Council did not acknowledge her request for a disabled parking bay and it was delayed in responding to her subsequent letters, including a letter of complaint. Ms A said that contrary to the Council stating that its Highways Department had written to her, she had not received any correspondence from that department. The Ombudsman found that the Council failed to acknowledge and respond to Ms A’s letters in a timely manner, and it was unable to explain what happened to them over a period of several months. There was evidence that the Highways Department had drafted a letter to Ms A, but it was unclear if it was sent. The Ombudsman found there was a lack of information available on the Council’s website about the disabled parking bay application process. The Council’s failure to respond to Ms A in a timely manner, resulted in the opportunity for her application to be considered, being delayed by 1 year. He decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to : within 10 working days, apologise to Ms A, pay her redress of £125 and provide her with a clear explanation of how and when she can submit an application, within 1 month, to publish permanent information on its website about the disabled parking bay application process, and within 2 months, undertake a review of its internal postal system. If Ms A’s future application is successful, the Council agreed that within 1 month of its decision, it would consider further financial redress, to acknowledge the injustice caused and the impact of the delay in the provision of a disabled parking bay.

Mr X complained that the Council’s Trading Standards team ceased an investigation into a trader from whom he had purchased a van. Mr X stated that he had evidence which contradicted the Council’s statement that the Trader was no longer trading. He therefore complained that the Trading Standards team should resume the investigation. Following discussion with the Ombudsman, the Council agreed to consider the evidence which Mr X had collated and confirm whether it would cause the Trading Standards team to resume an investigation. The Council agreed to provide a formal written response to Mr X within 30 working days of the Ombudsman’s decision.

The Ombudsman received a complaint from the Practice Manager of a GP Practice (“the Practice”) in the area of the Aneurin Bevan University Health Board (“the Health Board”), that a Member (“the Member”) of Newport City Council had failed to observe the Code of Conduct for Members. It was alleged that the Member used their position as a member of the Council improperly when they advocated on behalf of a patient of the Practice. The Ombudsman concluded that the Member had made 2 telephone calls to the Practice in which she sought to improperly rely on her position as a Member of the Council, and as a Council representative on the Health Board, in order to speak to an on-call doctor about the patient’s healthcare.  The Ombudsman also concluded that the Member had made a complaint to the Health Board containing information which was critical of the Practice staff and did not accurately reflect the content of the telephone conversations.  The Ombudsman was of the view that the complaint was an attempt by the Member to use their position to undermine the actions of the Practice and create a disadvantage for it. The Ombudsman therefore determined that the Member may have breached paragraph 7(a) of the Council’s Code of Conduct for Members and referred his investigation report to the Monitoring Officer of Newport City Council for consideration by its Standards Committee. The Standards Committee concluded that the Member had breached paragraph 7(a) of the Code of Conduct and suspended her for 3 months.  It also recommended to the Council that she be removed from her position on the Health Board.

Mrs C complained that Newport City Council (“the Council”) had failed to communicate properly with her or her agent during a planning application she made to it for an extension to her home. She stated that there had been delays in the process and that she missed the opportunity to appeal its decision to refuse her application because of poor communication by its planning officers. She also complained that no one from the Council had spoken to her during its investigation of her complaint to it. The Ombudsman, during his assessment of her complaint to him, was concerned about the Council’s communications when its planning officer’s report was delayed. It sought to remedy this in its Stage 1complaint response to Mrs C but, this was not fully explained to her when it offered to waive its pre-application fee. The Ombudsman, therefore contacted the Council. It agreed to: 1. Ensure that a planning officer would contact her within 14 working days of the date of the decision letter in order to assist her with any advice regarding a pre-application enquiry. 2. Arrange a site visit to her property as part of this pre-application process. 3. Waiver any fees for the resubmission of a planning application by her for an extension to her home before the 21 July 2021. The Ombudsman is satisfied that this action will resolve Mrs C’s complaint.