PSOW Individual Decisions

Mrs H complained to the Ombudsman about Powys County Council’s procedures for the deferral of school entry for summer born children. Mrs H said that the Council’s ‘Children and Young People Educated Out of Year Group’ Policy (“the Policy”) was unsuitable for summer born children. Mrs H said that the Council did not review the evidence she submitted to support her application to defer her son’s school entry. The Ombudsman found that the Council’s decision to reject Mrs H’s application was properly made. However, the Ombudsman was concerned that the Policy used in the Council’s complaint response did not apply to Mrs H’s son, and therefore the complaint response was not appropriate. The Ombudsman said that the Policy did not clearly set out who it applied to. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to apologise to Mrs H for the lack of clarity in its complaint response, issue a revised complaint response, and review the Policy within 20 working days.

The Ombudsman’s office received complaints that a Member of Powys County Council had breached the Code of Conduct.  The Member was not re-elected in May 2022 (“the Former Member”).  It was alleged that the Former Member had: Disclosed confidential information. Made allegations without evidence to support them to a wide audience. Behaved inappropriately during a confidential session of the full Council meeting on 15 July. Made unreasonable demands. Demanded an unreasonable amount of officer time and attention. Made vexatious complaints and complaints without foundation. Used an unreasonable amount of Council resources. Behaved inappropriately during a confidential session of the full Council meeting on 15 July. The investigation considered whether the Former Member failed to comply with the following provisions of the Code of Conduct: 4(b) – To show respect and consideration for others. 4(c) – Not to use bullying behaviour or harass any person. 5(a) – Not to disclose confidential information or information which should reasonably be regarded as being of a confidential nature, without the express consent of a person authorised to give such consent, or unless required by law to do so. 6(1)(a) – Not to conduct herself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing her office or authority into disrepute. 6(1)(d) – Not to make vexatious, malicious or frivolous complaints against other members or anyone who works for, or on behalf of, her authority. 7(b) (i) – Not to use, or authorise others to use, the resources of her authority imprudently. 7(b)(iv) – Not to use, or authorise others to use, the resources of her authority other than in a manner which is calculated to facilitate, or to be conducive to, the discharge of the functions of the authority or of the office to which she has been elected or appointed. During the investigation documentation and information received from the Council was reviewed and witness evidence was obtained from senior officers of th

Mr X complained that Powys County Council (“the Council”) failed to keep him informed about works to be carried out in respect of flooding in the vicinity of his property. He said that he had not been contacted since July 2022, despite the Council’s agreement to keep him updated. The Ombudsman found that the Council did contact Mr X in July 2022 and advised him that it would contact him when it had more information. It subsequently failed to do so, which resulted in Mr X submitting a complaint to her office. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to provide Mr X with a written apology, a full update in respect of the works completed to date and a redress payment of £125 in recognition of its failure to communicate and the time and trouble taken in Mr X pursuing his complaint, within 10 working days.

Mr A raised safeguarding concerns about his son and a School within the Council’s area. He complained that the Council did not investigate the family’s complaint against the Board of Governors properly or in a timely manner and did not provide an appropriate response. He also complained that communication with the family by the Council was inaccurate and misleading, the Council did not provide appropriate oversight and/or guidance to the School in relation to the handling of complaints, and the Council did not discharge its safeguarding duties appropriately or in a timely manner. The Ombudsman found that the Council did not provide appropriate oversight and/or guidance to the School in relation to the handling of complaints. It found that no one took responsibility for ensuring that the investigation into a safeguarding allegation was being progressed by the Governing Body in a timely manner nor for keeping Mr A regularly updated over a significant length of time. The failure to keep Mr A updated caused frustration and distress and led to Mr A having to spend time chasing for updates over a prolonged period of time. This was unacceptable and an injustice to him, Mrs A and their son, B. The Ombudsman upheld this aspect of the complaint. The Ombudsman found that the Council investigated the family’s complaint against the Governing Body properly and in a timely manner and provided an appropriate response. It also found that communication with the family was not inaccurate and misleading and that it did discharge its safeguarding duties appropriately and in a timely manner. The Ombudsman did not uphold these aspects of the complaint. The Council agreed to, within 1 month, apologise to Mr A, and make a financial redress payment of £500. It also agreed to review its current process and consider amending the process to include appointing a Council Single Point of Contact for complainants when the Council is overseeing the handling of a complaint by a Governing Body.

Mr X complained to the Ombudsman regarding issues with Powys County Council’s assisted refuse and recycling collections from his address. Mr X was unhappy that since informing the Council that he is disabled, and reaching an agreement for the collections to be made from beside his house, the collections had been missed on several occasions. The Ombudsman found that despite acknowledging failings within its responses to Mr X’s Stage 2complaints, the Council had not taken appropriate corrective measure to prevent a recurrence of repeated missed collections. The Ombudsman was not satisfied that the Council’s actions were appropriate considering the inconvenience that Mr X experienced. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to provide Mr X with a full apology, to offer him a financial redress payment to the value of £125 for the time and trouble associated with pursuing his complaints to arrange for a designated waste collections supervisor to contact Mr X to resolve ongoing concerns and to consider what actions could be taken to avoid assisted lift collections being missed in the future, within 20 working days

Ms X complained that she had been left with outstandingrepairs to her property despite the Council promising to act. Ms X further complained that there were brokenAsbestos boards within the property and that these had not yet been removed. The Ombudsman was concerned that Ms X had outstandingrepairs on her property and therefore contacted the Council. The Council confirmed that all repairs to MsX’s property had been actioned and reviewed, however, there was 1 repairoutstanding for the broken Asbestos boards. Furthermore, as an alternative to aninvestigation, the Council agreed that the removal of the Asbestos boards wouldbe completed by 9 September 2022. TheOmbudsman accepted this as a resolution to Ms X’s complaint.

Miss X complained that she was dissatisfied with recent renovations carried out by the Council and that she had been left with a dangerous kitchen for 2 years. Miss X also complained that despite complaining to the Council, she had yet to receive a response to her concerns. The Ombudsman was concerned that Miss X had encountered delays in having her kitchen repaired, and was also concerned that she had yet to receive a response from the Council. As an alternative to an investigation, and in settlement of Miss X’s complaint, the Council agreed to issue Miss X with a formal response to her concerns by 3 August 2022 and also provide a timeline for the repairs to be actioned by 3 August 2022.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that a member (“the Member”) of Llanigon Community Council (“the Council”) had breached the Code of Conduct. It was alleged that the Member had: Behaved in a disrespectful, aggressive, and very intimidating manner towards the complainant in a Council meeting on 9 December 2020. Bullied and intimidated the Clerk. Discriminated towards female Members by not including them in correspondence and discussions. Failed to consult full Council when taking decisions. Failed to discuss the Clerks wages. Failed to conduct virtual Council meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic. Delayed having a Council website and subsequently made one himself, which was in accessible to the public, and for which he claimed a fee from the Council for maintaining. Refused to provide receipts when claiming expenses. The investigation considered whether the Member failed to comply with the following provisions of the Code of Conduct: 4(b) – [The Member] must show respect and consideration for others. 4(c) – [The member] must not use bullying behaviour or harass any person. 6(1)(a) – [The Member] must not conduct themselves in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing their office or authority into disrepute. 7(a) – [The member] must not in their official capacity or otherwise, use or attempt to use their position improperly to confer on or secure for themselves, or any other person, an advantage or create or avoid for yourself, or any other person, a disadvantage. 9(a) – [The Member] must observe the law and their authority’s rules governing the claiming of expenses and allowances in connection with their duties as a member. Witness accounts were obtained from all members of the Council, the Clerk, and a County Councillor. Documentation provided by the Clerk and the Monitoring Officer of Powys County Council was also reviewed. The Member was not re-elected at the May 2022 elections and the evidence was inconsistent. The Ombudsman did not consider that

Mrs X complained that despite putting a complaint forward to the Council, she had not yet received a response to her concerns. The Ombudsman was concerned that Mrs X had not yet received a response from the Council and contacted the Council. As an alternative to an investigation, the Council agreed to provide Mrs X with a formal response by 18 July 2022. The Ombudsman accepted this as a resolution of Mrs X’s complaint.

Mr X complained that the Council had failed to comply with the Social Services Complaints Procedure (Wales) Regulations 2014 by failing to respond to his complaint in a timely manner. The Ombudsman contacted the Council which agreed to conclude its investigation and issue its Stage 2 response no later than 20 May 2022. It agreed to include an apology for the delay in concluding its investigation and for failing to keep Mr X updated. The Ombudsman considered this an appropriate resolution to the complaint as an alternative to an investigation.

Mr & Mrs A complained on behalf of their son, B, that the Council failed to satisfactorily safeguard and promote his welfare as a looked after child (“LAC”).1 They also raised concerns about the Council’s handling of their complaint. The Ombudsman found that the Council failed to follow the correct administrative process when it accepted a transfer of care provision for B from another local authority in January 2017. Contrary to the relevant statutory framework, the Council accepted the transfer without informing Mr & Mrs A, and altered the statutory basis on which it continued to make the care provision without re-assessing B’s care and support needs, or updating his care plans. The Council also failed to make any record of, or plan for, the transfer and could not explain or evidence why it had taken place. In January 2018 a decision was taken to manage B under the statutory procedures for LAC, because the amount of time he was in Council arranged accommodation increased significantly following the transfer of care provision. The Council’s decision was based on its understanding that any child who spent more than 120 days each year out of the family home was automatically a LAC according to the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015. The Ombudsman found that the Council’s interpretation of the law and guidance around B’s looked after status was wrong. The Council also assumed parental consent for B to be looked after on a voluntary basis without properly explaining Mr & Mrs A’s parental rights. The lack of transparency and administrative failings around the transfer of care provision, and its impact on subsequent decision making, caused an avoidable breakdown in the relationship between Mr & Mrs A and the Council. The Ombudsman also considered that the failings engaged Mr & Mrs A’s and B’s rights to a fair process under Article 6 of the Human Rights Act, and to respect for their private and family life under Article 8. The Ombudsman ident

The Ombudsman received a complaint from a member of the public that a Member (“the Member”) of Powys County Council (“the Council”) had improperly used his position as a member of the Council when corresponding with the complainant about a civil dispute. The Ombudsman considered that the Member had become involved in the dispute with the complainant in his capacity as a solicitor, and later relied on his role as a Member of the Council in corresponding with the complainant.  In corresponding with the complainant, the Member required assistance from a Council Members Officer in receiving and sending emails.  The Ombudsman did not consider there to have been a credible link to Council business in relation to the civil dispute. The Ombudsman was not persuaded that there was evidence that the member had used his position improperly in order to create an advantage or disadvantage for a person (paragraph 7(a) of the Code of Conduct) but he concluded that the Member may have breached paragraphs 7(b)(i), 7(b)(iv), and 7(b)(vi) of the Code of Conduct as the Member appeared to have used the Council’s resources imprudently, other than in a manner which is calculated to facilitate the discharge of the Council’s functions, and improperly for private purposes During the course of the investigation, the Member made a number of comments about the complainant’s mental health, which the Ombudsman considered to be disrespectful and discriminatory in respect of a potential disability. The Ombudsman found that the Member’s behaviour was suggestive of a breach of the Council’s Code of Conduct, in particular paragraphs 4(a) and 4(b), as the Member failed to carry out his duties and responsibilities with due regard to the principle that there should be equality of opportunity for all people regardless of their disability, and a failure to show respect and consideration. The Ombudsman also found that the Member’s actions could reasonably be regarded as behaviour which might bring the office

The Ombudsman received a complaint that a Member (“the Member”) of Powys County Council (“the Council”) had breached the Code of Conduct when he appeared to be driving a vehicle during a virtual meeting. The Ombudsman reviewed the audio visual recording of the meeting and obtain information from the Police. He also considered an account provided by the Member. The Ombudsman found there was no available evidence to support the allegation that the Member was driving during the virtual meeting and concluded there was no evidence of a breach of the Code of Conduct by the Member.

Ms X complained about the Council’s decision to relocate her to alternative housing and that it failed to adequately support her with her tenancy. Ms X said that she had complained to the Council twice but that she had not received a response to her complaints. The assessment found that the Council had no record of the first complaint being made. However, it had provided a response to the second complaint, which Ms X had not received. The Council agreed to re-send a copy of its complaint response to Ms X in settlement of the complaint.

Mr A complained that Powys County Council had listed his drive as a public highway on the “Find My Street” website. He said that it had used the details of an existing public highway and had attached them to his private lane. The Ombudsman found that the Council’s highways register recorded Mr A’s lane as a public highway, maintainable at public expense. There had been no due legal process undertaken since Council members accepted it as an adopted road as per pre-1946 maps, to lead to its removal from the register. However, the Ombudsman also found that the descriptions of the roads used on the “Find My Street” website in relation to Mr A’s property and neighbouring properties, were incorrect. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to submit the corrections in order for the “Find My Street’ website to accurately reflect the descriptions of the roads leading to Mr A’s property and the neighbouring properties within 20 working days.

Ms A complained that damage was caused to her home whilst sub-contractors were fitting new windows to her Council property. The Council had referred her to the sub-contractor to attempt to resolve her dispute, which had failed. The Ombudsman considered that the Council, being her landlord, were responsible for representing and negotiating a resolution to the damage claim with the sub-contractor. The Ombudsman contacted the Council and it agreed to: 1) Arrange to visit to Ms A’s home and examine the damage. 2) Contact the sub-contractor to negotiate an acceptable resolution for the damage caused. I understand that the Council has already undertaken this process and that it is awaiting a response from the sub-contractor. The Ombudsman believes that the action by the Council resolves Mrs A’s complaint.

Mr X complained that Powys County Council (“the Council”) had refused to progress his complaint to stage 2 of the Social Services complaints procedure. The Ombudsman was concerned that based on the current information, the Council had decided a stage 2 investigation could not be progressed. In making enquiries with Mr X and the Council, he decided to settle the complaint without investigation. In settlement of the complaint, the Council agreed to complete a stage 2 investigation by 4 October 2021.

Mr X complained on behalf of his daughter, C, that the Council applied its Home to School and College Transport Policy incorrectly. The Ombudsman found that C was eligible for free home to school transport because of the distance that she lived from school. C was not entitled to free transport to her preferred secondary school (“the First High School”). However, the Ombudsman found that C’s brothers, A and B, had wrongly been provided with free transport to the First High School when they were not entitled to it, which was maladministration. Further, Mr and Mrs X were not told that A and B had been granted free transport to the First High School outside the terms of the Policy, which was also maladministration. This maladministration was not identified when A and B were at the First High School because the arrangements for the boys accorded with the family’s expectations. Therefore it did not cause the boys any injustice. However, when C’s application for transport was processed, the earlier maladministration was identified and her application was refused. This caused C an injustice. The complaint was therefore upheld. The prolonged manner in which the application was dealt with contributed to the injustice C experienced. Her application for transport was made in November 2019. She did not receive the outcome of the appeal process until October 2020, almost a year later and a month after she had begun attending the First High School. The Ombudsman recommended that within 1 month, the Council should apologise to Mr and Mrs X and C for the maladministration, and should arrange free home to school transport for C outside the terms of the Policy, until C finished her studies at the First High School. The Ombudsman also recommended that within 6 months, the Council should amend the Policy to explain that where students are granted free home to school transport outside the terms of the Policy, they must be notified that their free home to school transport was granted outs

Miss A complained about the Council’s failure to assess and conduct its own investigation into reports made to it about alleged abuse of her son. She said that the Council passed the matter to another Social Services department for jurisdictional reasons, and this decision was poor and demonstrated a lack of judgement. The Ombudsman found that the Council had declined to investigate Miss A’s complaint in accordance with the Social Services Complaints Procedure (Wales) Regulations, on the basis that doing so may influence ongoing legal proceedings. The Council failed to provide any evidence as to how investigation of its administrative/procedural decision not to undertake an assessment of Miss A’s son, would likely prejudice family court proceedings. The Ombudsman therefore concluded that Miss A’s complaint was one that should be investigated in accordance with the Regulations. The Ombudsman contacted the Council and it agreed to, within 5 working days: a) Commence a formal investigation into Miss A’s complaint, in accordance with Regulation 17 of the Social Services Complaints Procedure (Wales) Regulations 2014. The Ombudsman was satisfied that this would provide a resolution to the issues considered in this complaint.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that a member (“the Member”) of Powys County Council (“the Council”) had breached the Code of Conduct (“the Code”). It was alleged that the Member failed to declare a personal and prejudicial interest during a Council meeting in February 2023, where members voted to approve the Council’s 2023/24 budget.  The Complainant believed that the Member should have declared an interest prior to the 23/24 budget vote, due to an agreement he had reached with the Council Leader prior to the budget vote, which he believed benefited the Member’s employer. The investigation considered whether the Member had breached the Code by failing to declare a personal and prejudicial interest and when discussing and voting on the budget in meetings, including the meeting in February 2023. Information was obtained from the Council.  Witnesses, including the Complainant, were interviewed.  The Member was also interviewed. The investigation found that although the Member met with the Council Leader prior to the budget vote, to discuss his political party’s priorities, one of which was a package of financial support for a Welsh language youth festival (“the Festival”), the Member’s participation in the discussion with the Council Leader was not suggestive of a breach of the Code and there was no evidence that the Member inappropriately influenced the discussion or sought to create a benefit for himself or his employer. It was subsequently agreed by the Council’s Senior Leadership Team and Cabinet members, that the package of financial support for the Festival would be paid to the Urdd via the Member’s employer.  There was no evidence to suggest that this was proposed by the Member as part of the budget negotiations or that he played a part in proposing or in the making this decision. On balance, it was considered that by the time of the 23/24 budget meeting, the Member was likely aware that the plan was for the money to be paid to the Urdd via his employer.  Th

The Ombudsman received a complaint that a member (“the Member”) of Powys County Council (“the Council”) had breached the Code of Conduct (“the Code”). It was alleged that the Member failed to declare a personal and prejudicial interest during a Council meeting in February 2023, where members voted to approve the Council’s 2023/24 budget.  The Complainant believed that the Member should have declared an interest prior to the 23/24 budget vote, due to an agreement he had reached with the Council Leader prior to the budget vote, which he believed benefited the Member’s employer. The investigation considered whether the Member had breached the Code by failing to declare a personal and prejudicial interest and when discussing and voting on the budget in meetings, including the meeting in February 2023. Information was obtained from the Council.  Witnesses, including the Complainant, were interviewed.  The Member was also interviewed. The investigation found that although the Member met with the Council Leader prior to the budget vote, to discuss his political party’s priorities, one of which was a package of financial support for a Welsh language youth festival (“the Festival”), the Member’s participation in the discussion with the Council Leader was not suggestive of a breach of the Code and there was no evidence that the Member inappropriately influenced the discussion or sought to create a benefit for himself or his employer. It was subsequently agreed by the Council’s Senior Leadership Team and Cabinet members, that the package of financial support for the Festival would be paid to the Urdd via the Member’s employer.  There was no evidence to suggest that this was proposed by the Member as part of the budget negotiations or that he played a part in proposing or in the making this decision. On balance, it was considered that by the time of the 23/24 budget meeting, the Member was likely aware that the plan was for the money to be paid to the Urdd via his employer.  Th