PSOW Individual Decisions

Mr B complained about the way Swansea Council was dealing with his Social Services complaint. Mr B said that further to raising a Stage 2 complaint to the Council, it informed him that it did not have an Independent Investigator available, and he would be placed on a waiting list. The Ombudsman decided that the Council failed to provide regular and meaningful updates to Mr B since informing him he was being placed on a waiting list. She said this caused frustration and uncertainty to Mr B. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to provide a written apology and explanation to Mr B for the failure to provide regular and meaningful updates within 2 weeks and commit to doing to until an Independent Investigator is appointed.

Mrs X complained that Swansea Council had failed to provide a formal complaint response to address her complaint regarding noise nuisance. The Ombudsman decided that the Council had failed to provide a response to her complaint which caused frustration and inconvenience to Mrs X which led her to contact the Ombudsman. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to issue its formal response and apologise for the delay within 2 weeks.

Mrs D complained that Swansea Council failed to undertake the necessary repairs following damage caused by her bathroom shower. The Ombudsman found that whilst Mrs D had made a Stage 2 complaint, the Council prematurely closed the complaint without checking that Mrs D was happy following the works undertaken. She said that this caused frustration to Mrs D. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to apologise to Mrs D, provide an explanation for the premature closure of her complaint, and issue a complaint response within 2 weeks.

Miss G complained that Swansea Council (“the Council”) had not refunded her further costs for care and household bills, in relation to the period March to November 2018, when her nephew, Mr E, was living with her rather than in his supported accommodation. The Ombudsman found: · During the period in question, whilst Mr E received domiciliary support, it was not at the level he had been receiving while he lived in his supported accommodation. Accordingly, the Ombudsman concluded that Miss G should not have been paying care support contributions at the same rate. · The Ombudsman would have recommended a partial refund of care support payments were it not for the Council reappraising Miss G’s payments and concluding that there had been a shortfall and she was owed £884.10. The Ombudsman felt this amount was appropriate. · The Ombudsman also felt it was appropriate that the Council offered to make a further payment to Miss G of £250 for the time and trouble in bringing her complaint and trying to resolve the matter. Miss G, however, declined this payment.

The Ombudsman received 2 complaints from the then-Chair of Mumbles Community Council (“the Council”) that a Former Councillor had breached the Council’s Code of Conduct.  It was alleged that the Former Councillor had submitted a series of vexatious complaints to my office which had been targeted against a small group of the Council’s members.  It was further alleged that the Former Councillor covertly recorded a confidential session of a Council meeting and offered to play the recording to a member of the public. The Ombudsman found that the Former Councillor had made 9 complaints about Council members to her office in 7 months.  The Ombudsman considered none of the complaints to have merit, that some were frivolous while others were malicious and/or vexatious, which may amount to a breach of paragraph 6(1)(d) of the Council’s Code of Conduct. The Ombudsman found that the Former Councillor recorded a confidential session of a Council meeting but concluded that no evidence had been provided that the Former Councillor had shared the recording with a member of the public.  However, the Former Councillor had messaged a member of the public and offered to play the recording for him, which may have brought her office and the Council into disrepute, suggestive of a breach of paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Council’s Code of Conduct. The Ombudsman concluded that the Former Councillor’s conduct may amount to breaches of paragraphs 6(1)(a) and 6(1)(d) of the Council’s Code of Conduct and referred her report to the Monitoring Officer of Swansea Council for consideration by its Standards Committee. The Standards Committee decided that the Former Councillor had breached paragraphs 6(1)(a) and 6(1)(d) of the Code of Conduct.  It decided to censure the Former Councillor and noted that, had the Former Councillor remained a member of the Council, it would have suspended the Former Councillor for 6 months.

Ms X complained that Swansea Council (“the Council”) had failed to resolve a rat infestation at her property, having last raised a complaint about it in August 2022. The assessment found that the Council’s efforts to resolve the infestation had been inadequate. As an alternative to investigation, the Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to carry out a camera survey and block up the void in a cavity wall. The Council also agreed to remove and replace all contaminated insulation and clean the space where the floorboards had been raised before replacing them. The Council agreed to complete these actions within 6 weeks.

Mr L complained that Swansea Council failed to complete scheduled repairs within a timely manner and felt that there had been a breakdown in communication. The Ombudsman decided that the Council had not responded to Mr L’s concerns in accordance with its complaints procedure and said that this caused frustration and delays for Mr L. As an alternative to an investigation, the Ombudsman sought the Council’s agreement to apologise to Mr L for the delay in formally responding to his concerns, and to investigate his concerns formally in accordance with its complaints process, within 30 working days.

Mr X complained that Swansea Council failed to provide a complaint response about a parking matter. The Ombudsman decided that whilst the Council had initially responded to Mr X, it had failed to respond to his subsequent complaint. She said that this caused frustration and uncertainty to Mr X. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to apologise to Mr X, provide an explanation for this failure, and issue a complaint response within 4 weeks.

Mr X complained about how the Council had handled complaints about his mother’s care and concerns that he had raised about her welfare. Whilst the Ombudsman found that the Council’s response to Mr X’s complaint, and the concerns that he raised, was reasonable, there remained outstanding actions following the safeguarding referral. The Council confirmed that it had: • Allocated a Social Worker to complete the outstanding actions. • Updated its records concerning Mr X’s contact details. It agreed that, within 6 weeks of the date of this decision: • The Social Worker would contact Mr X about the current situation. • The Council would update the Ombudsman about the action it had taken.

Mr S complained that despite raising concerns with Swansea Council about sound proofing and fireproofing his property, the Council failed to action the promised works within the timeframe provided. The Ombudsman decided that the Council had informed Mr S of a timescale that it could not adhere to and it failed to provide updates. She said that this had caused a breakdown in communication and frustration to Mr S. As an alternative to an investigation, the Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to apologise to Mr S and provide him with a full update for the proposed timescales within 30 working days.

Mrs F complained that Swansea Council had failed to complete scheduled works on her property. Mrs F further complained that despite contacting the Council for updates, her emails were ignored, and no updates were provided. The Ombudsman decided that the Council had failed to complete the scheduled works in a timely manner and further failed to provide updates to Mrs F. She said that this caused delays and frustration to Mrs F, however decided to settle this complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to provide a written apology to Mrs F for the delays she encountered and complete the scheduled works within 30 working days of the Ombudsman’s decision letter. The Ombudsman accepted this as a resolution to Mrs F’s complaint.

Mr S complained thatdespite making complaints to the Council, he had not received a formal writtenresponse and felt that his concerns were not listened to. The Ombudsman contacted the Council as she was concerned that Mr S had not yet received a formal response. As an alternative to an investigation, the Council agreed to formally acknowledge Mr S’ concerns by 14October 2022 and to issue Mr S with a formal complaint response by 15 November2022. The Ombudsman accepted this as a resolution to Mr S’s complaint.

Ms X complained about delays with the Council’s investigation in response to her Social Services complaint about the care of her son. The Ombudsman decided that the Council should provide Ms X with its Stage 2 response by 31 August 2022. It should also write to her to advise of the current position with her outstanding complaints. The Ombudsman considered this to be an appropriate resolution to the complaint instead of conducting an investigation.

Ms X complained that the Council failed to take action and resolve issues she had with mould in her home. The complaint was first formally raised with the Council in March 2022 but at the time of approaching the Ombudsman she had not received a response. The Ombudsman was concerned that the Council had not issued a Stage 1 response. The Council offered to escalate the matter to Stage 2 and agreed to write to Ms X with an apology and to confirm the escalation by 7 June 2022.

Mrs X complained about issues regarding the kitchen refit that the Council undertook at her home, including delays, the quality of workmanship and the lack of adequate liaison between tradespeople. She complained that she was left without a functioning kitchen for over 20 months. The Ombudsman found that, although the Council had responded to some of Mrs X’s concerns, there was no single, comprehensive response setting out where it accepted there were shortcomings and where it considered issues to have been the result of factors outside of its control. In order to resolve the complaint, the Council agreed to, within 30 working days, provide Mrs X with a comprehensive written response to the issues she had raised and, where shortcomings were identified, consider what redress was appropriate. The Ombudsman considered this to be an appropriate settlement and did not investigate.

Mrs A complained that the Council’s Adult Social Services was unreasonable in refusing to implement a minimum standard of monitoring as recommended in its Stage 2 investigation of her son’s (Mr B) complaint, and that the Council failed to apologise for the failings identified in the Stage 2 investigation. The Ombudsman found that, whilst the Council failed to review Mr B’s care plans, its rationale was reasonable, in that implementing a recommendation of a fixed review deadline service-wide would not necessarily be appropriate in every case and could undermine individual planning for individual needs. This aspect of the complaint was therefore not upheld. The Ombudsman was disappointed however that the Council had not issued an apology to Mrs A for the failings it had found as part of its own investigation. This contradicted the Council’s Social Services Complaints Policy and therefore constituted maladministration, as well as causing Mrs A avoidable distress. This part of the complaint was upheld. The Ombudsman recommended that, within 1 month, the Council should apologise to Mrs A for the failings identified and make a redress payment of £250 in recognition of avoidable time and trouble caused to her by needing to escalate her concerns. The Ombudsman also recommended that, within 3 months, the Council should review the way in which it communicates the outcome of Stage 2 investigations and provide the Ombudsman with the outcomes of this review and any planned improvements as a result.

Mrs A complained about the care and treatment that Mrs X received at the Care Home between February and March 2017. Mrs X was unable to make decisions about her treatment and care arrangements. Mrs A complained that the Care Home failed to treat Mrs X’s chest and urine infections, failed to notify the immediate family she was seriously ill until it considered she was going to die, misdiagnosed her, withheld treatment, food and fluid, actively encouraged the family to let her die and failed to notify social services of the aforementioned. The investigation found that it was appropriate for the Care Home to rely on the diagnosis and treatment plan formulated by the GP. Appropriate attempts were made by the nursing staff to administer treatment in accordance with the instruction of the GP and any omissions were a consequence of safety concerns. Timely contact was made with the immediate family, appropriate updates were given and their concerns were relayed to the GP. The Care Home did not withhold food and fluid however due to the lack of documentary evidence, the investigation could not determine whether the amounts offered were appropriate to meet her dietary needs and so this aspect of the complaint was partially upheld. There was no evidence to suggest that the Care Home staff “actively encouraged” the immediate family to let Mrs X die; rather an accurate and frank description of the clinical situation and advice was given. There was no contractual obligation for the Care Home to keep social services updated unless there were safeguarding concerns. The Care Home agreed to provide Mrs A with an apology for the failings identified. It also agreed to undertake an audit and any action necessary in response to the audit findings to ensure compliance with the completion of approved electronic fluid and food charts. Mrs A complained about the primary care service provided to Mrs X by the GP Practice. In particular, the appropriateness of the assessments and investigations

Mr X complained about Swansea Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a change of use for a neighbouring property. In respect of the Council’s response to his complaint, Mr X said that it ignored most of his complaint and specific policy issues and that it was inadequate, incomplete, and unsatisfactory. The Ombudsman found that the Council’s complaint response did not sufficiently address all of the issues Mr X had included in his complaint submission. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to provide a further full written complaint response to Mr X within twenty working days.

Mr A complained about the Council’s complaints handling, its initial failure to respond to his complaint and that it provided a contradictory response in its Stage 1 and Stage 2 complaint responses on one aspect. The Ombudsman determined that the first issue was out of time for consideration. However, he was concerned that the responses provided were contradictory. He decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. He sought the Council’s agreement to, within one month, apologise for the discrepancy in its responses and explain how it had occurred.

Mrs A complained about the care provided by Swansea Council to her late son, Mr B. In particular, she complained that the care plans produced by the Council for Mr B between 2017 and 2018 were inadequate and not reviewed in a timely and effective manner and that inadequate discussion took place between the Council and Mr B regarding the sharing of information with his family. Mr B took his own life on 22 March 2018. The investigation found that the care plans met the regulatory standard expected of the Council and that a delay in reviewing Mr B’s 2018 plan had not resulted in an adverse outcome in the care provided. This aspect of the complaint was therefore not upheld. In relation to Mrs A’s complaint that inadequate discussion took place with Mr B regarding the sharing of information with his family, the investigation found no evidence that adequate conversations took place about the extent of involvement he wished his family to have in his care. Policies and procedures were not adequately explained, and whilst increased family involvement may not have changed the ultimate outcome for Mr B, the uncertainty created by this failing was an injustice to Mrs A. The Ombudsman upheld this part of the complaint. The Ombudsman recommended that the Council should apologise to Mrs A for the failings identified and make a redress payment of £250 for the time and trouble of bringing her complaint to his office. He also recommended that the Council provides evidence that it has reviewed the way in which information sharing with family members is discussed and documented, reviewed the information provided to clients and families ensuring that all information is clear and up to date and that it has reviewed its policies and procedures about managing reports of missing residents from supported accommodation.

Mrs J complained about how Swansea Bay University Health Board (“the Health Board”) dealt with her requests to raise a complaint on behalf of the late Mr Q concerning the treatment he received. Mrs J also complained about how Swansea Council (“the Council”) dealt with her requests to raise a complaint about the treatment Mr Q received from the Council’s Social Services department. The Ombudsman’s investigation found that whilst the Health Board provided an initial response to Mrs J’s concerns – it indicated that Mr Q had asked, while he was alive, that some information was not shared with Mrs J – the Council did not formally respond, despite months of correspondence with Mrs J, as it did not think she was a “suitable person” to raise issues on behalf of Mr Q. When Mrs J followed up the Health Board’s response with further questions, it took a long time to respond and when it did it also concluded that Mrs J was not a suitable person to raise further issues on behalf of Mr Q. The Ombudsman concluded that whilst it was appropriate for both bodies to seek agreement from Mr Q’s next of kin to respond to Mrs J, when this could not be obtained and it was clear that Mrs J was the only individual who was prepared to raise concerns on behalf of the late Mr Q, a response should have been prepared (including a second by the Health Board) taking into account Mr Q’s views about what he did not want shared with Mrs J. The Ombudsman said that this might have resolved Mrs J’s concerns and might have resulted in her not needing to approach the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman upheld Mrs J complaint. He recommended that the Health Board and the Council apologise to Mrs J and co-ordinate a joint response that addresses Mrs J’s outstanding concerns. He also recommended that each body make a redress payment to Mrs J of £250 to reflect the delays and time and trouble in bringing her complaints. Both the Health Board and the Council agreed to the Ombudsman’s recommendations.

Mrs J complained about how Swansea Bay University Health Board (“the Health Board”) dealt with her requests to raise a complaint on behalf of the late Mr Q concerning the treatment he received. Mrs J also complained about how Swansea Council (“the Council”) dealt with her requests to raise a complaint about the treatment Mr Q received from the Council’s Social Services department. The Ombudsman’s investigation found that whilst the Health Board provided an initial response to Mrs J’s concerns – it indicated that Mr Q had asked, while he was alive, that some information was not shared with Mrs J – the Council did not formally respond, despite months of correspondence with Mrs J, as it did not think she was a “suitable person” to raise issues on behalf of Mr Q. When Mrs J followed up the Health Board’s response with further questions, it took a long time to respond and when it did it also concluded that Mrs J was not a suitable person to raise further issues on behalf of Mr Q. The Ombudsman concluded that whilst it was appropriate for both bodies to seek agreement from Mr Q’s next of kin to respond to Mrs J, when this could not be obtained and it was clear that Mrs J was the only individual who was prepared to raise concerns on behalf of the late Mr Q, a response should have been prepared (including a second by the Health Board) taking into account Mr Q’s views about what he did not want shared with Mrs J. The Ombudsman said that this might have resolved Mrs J’s concerns and might have resulted in her not needing to approach the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman upheld Mrs J complaint. He recommended that the Health Board and the Council apologise to Mrs J and co-ordinate a joint response that addresses Mrs J’s outstanding concerns. He also recommended that each body make a redress payment to Mrs J of £250 to reflect the delays and time and trouble in bringing her complaints. Both the Health Board and the Council agreed to the Ombudsman’s recommendations.

Mrs A complained about various issues connected to a Club which adjoins her property. Her concerns primarily related to the Council’s failure to take any planning enforcement action against the Club. The Ombudsman found that Swansea Council (“the Council”) had considered Mrs A’s complaint appropriately and explained that the Club had been in situ for many years, and pre-dated Mrs A’s purchase of her property, and why, in planning terms, it was unable to take action against the Club for the historic planning matters raised. The Ombudsman considered the Council’s response was detailed and reasonable in this regard. However, the Ombudsman considered that the Council could take some action in relation to Mrs A’s complaints about the erection of a recent structure without planning permission and complaints of noise nuisance which the Council had not formally addressed as these complaints were made during the national lockdown resulting from the coronavirus pandemic. Following contact from the Ombudsman, the Council agreed to visit the Club to consider Mrs A’s complaint about the recently erected shelter and advise her of the status of the building in planning terms, and to also assess her noise concerns.

Mr X complained to the Ombudsman about damage that was caused to his property as a result of a leak which occurred from the property above his. The Council’s insurers refused his claim for compensation on the basis that no negligence existed. In considering the complaint, the Ombudsman noted that the Council had not considered Mr X’s concerns through its complaints procedure. Following discussions with the Ombudsman, the Council agreed that within 30 working days, it would provide Mr X with a written complaint response.

Mr A complained that since the Council had carried out work and renewed parts of the heating system in his home, it had become noisy and did not maintain the temperature level of heat that he had previously received. An assessment of Mr A’s complaint found that the Council had responded to him in writing under its complaints procedure. The Ombudsman was of the view that the Council should offer Mr A a second opinion regarding the heating system at his home. The Ombudsman contacted the Council and it agreed that: 1) The Gas section manager will carry out a full inspection of his heating system. 2) Provide him with a written summary of the inspection. This will be completed within 20 working days of the date of my decision letter.