PSOW Individual Decisions

Ms X complained that despite a previous complaint to the Ombudsman, which had resulted in a settlement with the Council, her refuse was still not being collected and that she had only received 2 refuse collections since August 2020. The Ombudsman was concerned that, despite the previous agreement with the Council, the issue of Ms X’s refuse not being collected was ongoing, and that she had continued to be inconvenienced by a lack of action by the Council. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to carry out the following actions within 2weeks, as an alternative to an investigation: · Provide Ms X with a written apology for the continued missed refuse collections. · Arrange a meeting with Ms X to discuss the ongoing issues and a proposal for action going forward (which had already taken place on 24 June 2021). · Reinstate the monitoring of the collections for a period of 3 months.

Ms B complained that, during a child protection investigation between July and August 2019 relating to her daughter, A, Flintshire County Council (“the Council”) failed to gather appropriate information and consider whether A required communication support before it interviewed her. She also said that it did not appropriately consider her views as A’s mother and advocate. Ms B also complained that the Council failed to take appropriate action in respect of subsequent referrals and disclosures and that it failed to comply with the recommendation of the Council’s independent stage 2 complaint investigation to interview A again. The Ombudsman found that further enquiries should have been made before A was interviewed but that this had no impact on the interview or the Council’s decision making. In addition, the Council had already apologised for this and taken appropriate steps to improve practice going forward. He found that the Council was entitled to rely on the information it received about A’s communication needs, which suggested that she would be able to engage with the interview without additional support. In the event, A was willing and able to discuss her concerns in interview. He further found that Ms B was kept informed throughout the investigation and given appropriate opportunities to offer any information she wished, for consideration. In relation to the Council’s complaint handling, he found that it was appropriate for the Council to consider for itself whether to comply with the recommendation from the stage 2 complaint investigation and that it was reasonable for it to decide not to re-interview A at the time that decision was made. The Ombudsman did not uphold these complaints. The Ombudsman found that subsequent referrals received were broadly similar to the issues already considered and did not require further investigation. However, A made additional disclosures in January 2020 which should have prompted formal consideration by the Council and, whe

Mr A complained that the Council’s planning department gave planning permission for a house on a new development to be built too close to his property despite this not being in keeping with its planning requirements, policies and Unitary Development Plan (UDP). He was also dissatisfied with the Council’s complaint handling including the robustness of its complaint response. The Ombudsman’s investigation found evidence that the Council had regard to its UDP when it came to the density of the development and site layout. He also concluded that the Council’s decision that the separation distance between Mr A’s property and the new development was acceptable was not unreasonable. Whilst the Council had failed to ensure respective planning applications addressed finished floor levels, the Ombudsman was satisfied that in relation to the latest planning application the Planning Officer’s report showed that he had referred to the relevant guidance and carried out an assessment. Additionally, photographs provided to the Planning Committee would have enabled it to give some consideration to the ground levels and the relationship with Mr A’s property. The Ombudsman did not uphold this part of Mr A’s complaint. The Ombudsman did find shortcomings in complaint handling. This, coupled with factual inaccuracies in the complaint response, meant the Council missed an opportunity to identify wider organisational/officer learning to be derived from Mr A’s complaint. The Ombudsman recommended that the Council apologise to Mr A for the failings in complaint handling and remind its planning officers of the importance of ensuring conditions/guidance relating to finished ground levels are enforced/applied.