PSOW Individual Decisions

Mr X complained that the Council had not provided him with a response to the complaint he submitted to it in June 2022. The Ombudsman decided that there had been a delay in the Council’s complaint response, which led Mr X 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 complaint response and apologise for the delay. It also agreed to pay Mr X redress of £100 in recognition of the time and trouble he had expended.

Mr X complained that the Council did not complete agreed road works to rectify potholes on a road leading to his property. The Ombudsman contacted the Council, and it agreed to provide a written apology to Mr X for the delay. It will also provide assurances that the works will be complete by the end of October 2022. The Ombudsman considered this to be a sufficient resolution as an alternative to investigating the complaint.

Mrs X complained that the Council failed to provide appropriate and adequate support to her sister, Ms Y, in the months leading to her death, including whether information was shared appropriately between the Council and a third-party organisation providing services on behalf of the Council (“the Provider”), and whether the Council took appropriate action in relation to any information shared. Ms Y, an adult with learning disabilities, had lived with and been cared for, by members of her family all her life. Mrs X approached Social Services with a view that Ms Y should lead a more independent life and a series of assessments took place to determine appropriate living accommodation for Ms Y. Ms Y’s alcohol consumption was a long-standing problem which Mrs X relayed to the Council as one of her main concerns. Ms Y moved into supported living accommodation in April 2019. The Council entered into a contract (“the Contract”) with the Provider to provide on-site daily care/support to the residents in the supported living accommodation, which included Ms Y. The Ombudsman found that despite mounting concerns about Ms Y in terms of her regular refusal of support, about the state of her flat, and around her drinking, the Provider did not escalate these concerns to the Council until March 2020. The Contract clearly set out the circumstances in which matters should have been escalated to the Council, and the threshold for raising concerns had been met several weeks before March 2020. When the Provider did contact the Council in March and April 2020, they were unable to access help/advice. Whilst this was at the period marking the beginning of the COVID-19 lockdown, the Provider should have been able to access help/advice. Ms Y sadly died in April 2020. Whilst the Provider was under contract to provide services on behalf of the Council, the Council remained responsible for the delivery of services to Ms Y. The Council should have ensured it monitored the delivery of this service

Mrs X complained that she had been on the waiting list for intermediary services from the North Wales Adoption Service (hosted by the Council) since October 2020. Mrs X also complained that whilst her initial emails and concerns were responded to, the Council had not provided a response to her further emails. The Council acknowledged that Mrs C’s complaint had not been escalated in accordance with its internal complaints policy. The Council agreed to complete the following in settlement of Mrs X’s complaint by 28 June 2022, as an alternative to the Ombudsman investigating it: a) Provide Mrs X with an apology for the delay in responding to her emails and for the failure to advise her on how to escalate her concerns b) Provide an explanation for this oversight c) Provide a commitment to reminding all staff of the process for complainants to escalate their concerns d) Provide a complaint response.

The Ombudsman received a complaint from a member of the public that a Member of Brymbo Community Council and Wrexham County Borough Council had breached the Code of Conduct (“the Code”) when he made an alleged false complaint about the complainant to the Police, relating to an incident which occurred on a bus. The Member had emailed the Police and stated that the complainant had been very aggressive, and he believed her behaviour amounted to a breach of the peace or a public order offence.  He was also concerned about personal comments made to him by the complainant.  He suggested that he had been subject to unwarranted verbal abuse. The Ombudsman obtained information from the Police and CCTV footage from the bus company.  Having considered the information available, he did not consider that the complainant appeared aggressive as suggested by the Member, and he found that the comments made by the complainant related to issues which were public knowledge.  On the basis of the information available, he did not consider they could reasonably be considered “verbal abuse”. The Ombudsman concluded that the Member’s correspondence to the Police was misleading or exaggerated and that his behaviour was suggestive of a breach of paragraph 7(a) of the Code of Conduct.  The Ombudsman also concluded that attempting to misuse his position in this way and wrongly accusing someone of committing a public order offence is capable of bringing the Member’s office or authority into disrepute and is suggestive of a breach of paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Code of Conduct. The Ombudsman therefore referred his report to the Monitoring Officer of Wrexham County Borough Council for consideration by its Standards Committee. The Standards Committee determined that the Member had breached paragraphs 6(1)(a) and 7(a) of the Code and suspended him from both Councils for 3 months.

The Ombudsman received a complaint from a member of the public that a Member of Brymbo Community Council and Wrexham County Borough Council had breached the Code of Conduct (“the Code”) when he made an alleged false complaint about the complainant to the Police, relating to an incident which occurred on a bus. The Member had emailed the Police and stated that the complainant had been very aggressive, and he believed her behaviour amounted to a breach of the peace or a public order offence.  He was also concerned about personal comments made to him by the complainant.  He suggested that he had been subject to unwarranted verbal abuse. The Ombudsman obtained information from the Police and CCTV footage from the bus company.  Having considered the information available, he did not consider that the complainant appeared aggressive as suggested by the Member, and he found that the comments made by the complainant related to issues which were public knowledge.  On the basis of the information available, he did not consider they could reasonably be considered “verbal abuse”. The Ombudsman concluded that the Member’s correspondence to the Police was misleading or exaggerated and that his behaviour was suggestive of a breach of paragraph 7(a) of the Code of Conduct.  The Ombudsman also concluded that attempting to misuse his position in this way and wrongly accusing someone of committing a public order offence is capable of bringing the Member’s office or authority into disrepute and is suggestive of a breach of paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Code of Conduct. The Ombudsman therefore referred his report to the Monitoring Officer of Wrexham County Borough Council for consideration by its Standards Committee. The Standards Committee determined that the Member had breached paragraphs 6(1)(a) and 7(a) of the Code and suspended him from both Councils for 3 months.

Mrs T complained that the Adult Safeguarding Team (“the AST”) at Wrexham County Borough Council (“the Council”) mismanaged 4 Safeguarding referrals it received in respect of her late friend, Mr D – for whom Mrs T held Lasting Power of Attorney for Health and Welfare (“an LPA”). The referrals alleged that Mr D, who had progressive dementia, suffered abuse/was at risk of abuse from Mrs T as the result of her interactions with him (following his placement in a Care Home). Mrs T complained that: 1. The Safeguarding referrals should not have met the threshold for investigation as they were vexatious in nature. 2. The Safeguarding investigations were not conducted in accordance with the Social Services and Wellbeing (Wales) Act 2014. 3. A Safeguarding officer inappropriately reported the received referrals to the Office of the Public Guardian (“the OPG”), which is responsible for registering and regulating LPAs. 4. Mr D was not informed of the referrals or of the subsequent investigations and so his views on the events in question were not obtained. Also, evidence was not obtained from witnesses whose input might have favourably influenced the investigations. 5. Mrs T was not updated on the progress or conclusions of the investigations. The Ombudsman did not uphold any of Mrs T’s complaints. His investigation found that: 1. There was no evidence that the referrals, as received, were vexatious in nature. The AST was obliged to investigate whether Mr D was an adult at risk and (in 2 of the 4 referrals) recommended appropriate protective measures to restrict Mrs T’s contact with Mr D. 2. The Ombudsman found that the AST dealt with the referrals it received in accordance with procedures set out in Part 7 of the Social Services and Wellbeing (Wales) Act 2014 (and in accordance with Volume 6 of statutory guidance issued by the Welsh Government). 3. The Ombudsman found that the decision to report the received referrals to the OPG was not unreasonable (as the regulator of LPAs).

Ms X complained that the Council had failed to carry out and complete repair works she has reported for many years. The Council confirmed the delays were initially due to issues with contractor availability prior to the COVID-19 pandemic; the pandemic then additionally had a huge impact on it delivering its services. The Council has agreed with the Ombudsman to provide Ms X with a schedule of start and completion dates for each outstanding job, and to complete all works by 10 May 2022.

Mrs M complained that the Council failed to take action to mitigate noise from the property neighbouring hers. She wanted the Council to fund and arrange the installation of carpeting, underlay and soundproof boarding, which she understood had been done in other properties with similar issues with increased sound transmission. The Ombudsman found that the Council had investigated the noise but that it did not constitute a statutory noise nuisance. The noise was the result of normal family activity from the neighbouring property, although it was unfortunately more audible for Mrs M because of the age of the properties and the original materials and practices used when it was built. In the absence of a statutory nuisance there was no obligation on the Council to take action, although underlay and carpets had, since Mrs M complained, been installed in the neighbouring property. There was also no duty on the Council to provide soundproofing for private property owners and this was not a public service that it provided. However, the Ombudsman found that an email sent to Mrs M had unreasonably raised her expectation that such provision might have been available to her. The Council agreed to apologise for not clearly or directly addressing and rectifying this misunderstanding and to provide feedback to relevant staff on the importance of ensuring that communications with service users and complainants is clear and does not raise unrealistic expectations before services have been agreed.

Ms X complained that the Councilhad not provided her with a response to her complaint and it had not respondedto her further follow up communication. The Ombudsman wasconcerned that Ms X had not received a formal response to her complaint and that she had been inconvenienced by the Council’sactions. He decided to settle the complaint without aninvestigation. The Ombudsman soughtand gained the Council’s agreement to: · ProvideMs X with an apology for the delay in responding to her complaint · ProvideMs X with an explanation for the delay · ProvideMs X with a complaint response · ProvideMs X with a redress payment of £125 in recognition of the time and troubletaken in making her complaint and the delays she has experienced. TheCouncil agreed to carry out these actions within 2 weeks.

Ms A complained about how Wrexham County Borough Council responded when she reported a fault with an electric fire in her house, and how the Council had responded to her concerns. Ms A said that the inspection of the fire was insufficient and that the Council unfairly concluded it was tenant damage. Ms A was concerned about the safety of the fire and that her family had to manage without the fire during the winter months. The Ombudsman found that there had not been an independent physical inspection of the fire and therefore the Council’s conclusion was unjust. There was a lack of records and timely communication with Ms A, and no evidence that the Council had considered the impact caused by not having the fire in use. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to either replace the fire at no cost to Ms A or, arrange an independent physical inspection of the fire with a report. Should the report identify tenant damage, offer Ms A financial assistance with the cost incurred, and if a fault is identified, replace the fire at no cost to Ms A. In addition to these actions, the Council agreed to offer Ms A an apology for lack of timely and appropriate communication, and lack of consideration of the impact of not having use of the fire.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that a Member (“the Member”) of Wrexham County Borough Council (“the Council”) had breached the Code of Conduct (“the Code”). It was alleged that the Member used his position as an elected member to harass a member of the public in connection with a planning development. The Ombudsman’s investigation considered whether the Member’s conduct may have breached paragraphs 4(c) and 6(1)(a) of the Code. Information was obtained from the Council. Witnesses, including the complainant, were interviewed. The Member was interviewed. Information was obtained from the Police. The Ombudsman’s investigation found that the Member had acted on behalf of a constituent and concerns he received from members of the public. It was found that the Member and Complainant’s account of events differed considerably. The investigation found that there was a lack of independent evidence to account for what happened. The Police determined that the actions of the Member did not amount to harassment and no further action against him was required. The Ombudsman was not persuaded, on the balance of the available evidence, that there was evidence of a breach of the Code by the Member. The investigation also found that witness evidence from council officers demonstrated the Member’s conduct appeared to have been in-line with the usual approach taken by local elected members in relation to planning applications and land developments in their constituency. The Ombudsman found no evidence to suggest that the Member had attempted to assert undue influence on the Council department or use his position improperly. The Member also provided evidence to show members of the public contacted him to raise concerns about the Site which prompted him to visit on their behalf and look into the concerns. Therefore, on the balance of the available evidence, the Ombudsman considered that the Member’s explanation that he acted as the local elected member on behalf of his constituent, and