PSOW Individual Decisions

Mr X complained that the Council failed to follow its Social Services complaints procedure, as he had not received a formal acknowledgement nor response to his concerns, made in August 2022. The Ombudsman contacted the Council. As an alternative to an investigation, the Council agreed that it would issue Mr X with an apology for not following the Social Services complaints procedure and acknowledge his complaint formally by 30September 2022. The Council also agreed that it would investigate and respond to Mr X’s concerns under stage 1 of its complaints procedure, by 28 October 2022. The Ombudsman accepted this as a resolution to Mr X’s concerns.

Mr X complained that he has been unable to reset the password for his online account with RSW. He further complained that it did not respond to his request for contact. The Ombudsman contacted RSW, and it agreed to telephone Mr X by 30 September to rectify the password reset. It also agreed to issue a formal complaint response to Mr X by 21 October 2022.

Ms B complained that Cardiff Council (“the Council”) did not appropriately handle her complaint and failed to follow the statutory adult safeguarding procedure and appropriately deal with the safeguarding concerns she raised for her friend, Mr C. The Ombudsman’s investigation found that in the handling of Ms B’s complaint, the Council failed to appropriately communicate with her, provide updates or respond to the questions she raised. The Council did not acknowledge Ms B’s complaint and she experienced a significant delay in the Council providing her with a response. The Ombudsman found that the Council’s complaints handling was out of step with its complaints policy and amounted to maladministration. Ms B was not adequately informed or updated and experienced significant delays in the handling of her complaint which was an injustice to her. As a result, the Ombudsman upheld this element of Ms B’s complaint. The Ombudsman found that the Council’s decision to pause the investigation of her complaint, as a result of ongoing court proceedings, was in line with its policies and the Council had now resumed its investigation. As a result, this element of Ms B’s complaint was not upheld. In relation to Ms B’s complaint that the Council failed to follow the statutory adult safeguarding procedure and appropriately deal with the safeguarding concerns she raised for her friend, Mr C, the Ombudsman was unable to reach a finding as the Council’s complaints investigation into these matters was ongoing. The Ombudsman recommended that within one month the Council apologise to Ms B for the failings in communication. The Ombudsman recommended that within two months, the Council should remind its complaint handling staff of the importance of communicating frequently with complainants, keeping complainants updated on the handling of their complaint and the timely handling of complaints and responding to correspondence received from complainants in a timely manner.

Ms X complained about the standard of care provided to her niece, Ms Y, whilst in supported accommodation, prior to her death. She complained that the Council had not responded to her complaints. The Council stated that the matter had been referred through its safeguarding process. It further stated that it had not dealt with Ms X’s complaint under the Social Services complaints process previously as the matter was being considered by the Coroner. Given that the Coroner’s Office had now confirmed that its investigation had closed, the Council agreed: • To consider and respond to Ms X’s complaint under the statutory Social Services complaints procedure. • A council officer will contact her to discuss the details of her complaint, in line with that procedure, within 10 working days of the date of this decision.

Ms X complained that the Council failed to undertake essential maintenance to ensure foliage was cut back and not overgrown which can obstruct windows. The area is not accessible making it difficult for tenants to maintain themselves. Ms X also complained that the Council had failed to formally address her complaint. The Ombudsman found that the Council advised Ms X in September 2021 that it was developing a maintenance plan and would inform her of it once complete. At the time of complaining to the Ombudsman, this had still not been communicated to Ms X. The Council therefore agreed to apologise to Ms X for the delay in communicating with her and to notify her of the maintenance plan.

Mr X complained to the Ombudsman that he had submitted a complaint to the Council on 15 June 2022,but he had not received a response within a reasonable time. The Ombudsman was concerned that Mr X had yet to receive a response. As an alternative to an investigation, the Ombudsman contacted the Council. The Council agreed that it would issue Mr X with an apology and respond to Mr X’s concerns by 31 August2022. The Ombudsman accepted this as a resolution to Mr X’s complaint.

Ms X complained that the Council had failed to repair her ceiling despite undertaking numerous inspections. The Ombudsman found that the Council has failed to provide a complaint response which specifically addressed Ms X’s concerns about the condition of her ceiling. The Council agreed to complete the following in settlement of the complaint by 19 September 2022, as an alternative to the Ombudsman investigating it: a) Write to Ms X with an apology for the failure to address her specific concerns regarding the condition of her ceiling b) Provide an explanation for this oversight c) Issue its complaint response.

Miss B complained about the provision of education for her son, P, in particular that: a) Since the statutory annual review of P’s special educational needs in 2019, the Council failed to arrange the educational provision set out in his statement of special educational needs (“SSEN”). b) The Council unduly delayed providing a final amended SSEN since P stopped attending the school named in the SSEN in October 2020. The Ombudsman found there was no evidence that the provisions set out in P’s original SSEN were not being offered when it was reviewed in 2019. The Council agreed to include additional provision in the 2020 SSEN in response to Miss B’s concerns; it later agreed to help Miss B identify and consider alternative schools, although this was not because suitable provision was not being arranged for P. The Ombudsman did not uphold this part of the complaint. However, she found that there were delays in the Council issuing the final amended SSEN, which caused delay in Miss B being able to appeal the content of the statement to a Tribunal. The Ombudsman upheld this element of the complaint. The Ombudsman recommended that the Council apologise to Miss B, and offer her a payment of £750 in recognition of the distress caused and the loss of opportunity of appealing to the Tribunal at an earlier time.

Miss X complained that repairs she raised with the Council had not yet been completed despite promises to do so. The Ombudsman was concerned that Miss X had encountered delays in having the raised repairs actioned and therefore contacted the Council. As an alternative to an investigation, the Council agreed that it would schedule a visit to Miss X’s property by 30 August 2022 to determine the scope of the repairs that need actioning, and to inspect what repairs and materials would be required. The Council also agreed to prioritise the repairs of Miss X’s property once it has a full understanding of the repairs required. The Ombudsman accepted this as a resolution to Miss X’s complaint.

Ms X complained that she had not received a response from the Council following her complaint about her neighbour’s anti-social behaviour. The Ombudsman found that the Council had failed to provide a complaint response. The Council agreed to complete the following in settlement of Ms X’s complaint by 15 July 2022, as an alternative to the Ombudsman investigating it: a) Provide Ms X with an apology for the failure to provide regular and meaningful updates b) Provide an explanation for the delay in providing a complaint response c) Provide a complaint response.

Mr X complained that the Council did not respond to his complaint regarding a Social Services matter. The Ombudsman decided that the Council should arrange a virtual meeting between Mr X and its Operational Manager (by 8 July) to discuss the details of his complaint. It should then provide Mr X with a substantive written response to address his complaint (within 3 weeks of the meeting). The Council agreed to complete the above actions in settlement of the complaint. The Ombudsman considered this to be an appropriate resolution to the complaint instead of conducting an investigation.

Mrs X complained that the Council had failed to respond to her complaint regarding the maintenance of a cherry tree on Council property which she alleged was causing a health and safety risk and damage to her garden. The Ombudsman decided that the Council should provide Mrs X with a written response (by 27 April) to address her complaint, and it should also offer Mrs X an apology for the delay in its response. The Ombudsman considered this to be an appropriate resolution to the complaint instead of conducting an investigation.

Mr X complained that Cardiff Council failed to respond to a complaint he made in May 2021. He also complained about the Council’s failure to repair a leaking bath tap, first reported to it in March 2021. The Ombudsman found that Mr X had not received a substantive response to his complaint, submitted in May 2021. She also found that the Council failed to provide a response in accordance with its complaints policy in respect of a further complaint submitted by Mr X in July 2021. In respect of the leaking bath tap, the Ombudsman found that there was a delay of 11 months in the Council undertaking the repair, which was not in accordance with the Council’s policy for responding to either urgent or routine repair requests. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to undertake the following action: Within 20 working days: · Apologise to Mr X for the poor complaints handling and the failure to undertake the repair of his bathroom tap in accordance with its policy. · Provide a formal response to Mr X’s complaint, submitted in May 2021. Within 5 working days: · Offer Mr X a financial redress payment of £250 in recognition of the poor complaints handling. • Offer Mr X a financial redress payment of £250 in recognition of the delay in undertaking the repair of his bathroom tap.

Miss A complained that in July 2021, the Council agreed to carry out kitchen repairs which remained outstanding. This was despite contacting it twice when recovering from a serious illness. Miss A was also concerned about an error in the Council’s formal complaints response. The Ombudsman was concerned about the time taken to complete the repairs and that an explanation about the error in the complaints response had not been provided. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint. He sought and gained the Council’s agreement to carry out the repairs on a specified date. Also, within two weeks, to explain the error in its complaints response, provide an appropriate apology and offer a time and trouble payment of £250 in recognition of the additional distress caused.

Ms X complained that the Council had not responded to her complaint made to it in September 2021 in relation to numerous matters to do with her housing situation. The Ombudsman decided that the Council should provide Ms X with a substantive written response (by 8 April) to her complaint to address her concerns. The Ombudsman considered this to be an appropriate resolution to the complaint instead of conducting an investigation.

Mr X complained that he did not receive his order of green recycling bags, and that the Council failed to respond to his formal complaint. The Ombudsman was concerned that Mr X had yet to receive a response to his concerns and contacted the Council. As an alternative to an investigation, the Council agreed to provide Mr X with a formal response to his complaint by 31 March 2022. The Council also confirmed that recycling bags have now been delivered to Mr X.

Miss X complained that a submitted disrepair claims from 2020 are still ongoing, despite contacting the council in November 2021. The Ombudsman was concerned that Miss X’s repairs had not yet been resolved and contacted the Council. As an alternative to an investigation, the Council agreed that an appointment to resolve Miss X’s complaint has been scheduled for 4 April 2022.The Ombudsman accepted this as a resolution of Miss X’s complaint.

Mr X complained that the Council had failed to fully consider his concerns regarding the drainage issues happening at his allotment. In making enquiries with the Council, the Ombudsman was informed that the Council had made attempts to investigate matters and was attempting to identify the cause of the issue. The Ombudsman was concerned that the Council had failed to keep Mr X fully informed of this and as an alternative to an investigation, he asked the Council to, within the next 21 days, provide Mr X with a detailed and thorough response in settlement of the complaint.

Mr X complained that the Council failed to repair a window at his property for over two years. Mr X complained that despite several scheduled appointments being made by the Council, all appointments had been cancelled with no future date confirmed. The Ombudsman was concerned that Mr X had not yet had his window fixed, and that he had not received a scheduled date for this to take place. As an alternative to an investigation, the Council agreed to write to Mr X with a formal apology, and to schedule the repair to take place on 21 February 2022. The Ombudsman accepted this as a resolution of Mr X’s complaint.

Mrs A complained about the Council’s handling of her complaint about the governing body of a school. An independent investigator was appointed to investigate her complaint but Mrs A had not been provided with the outcome of the investigation despite assurances made a considerable time before she made her complaint to the Ombudsman that it would be. In settlement of her complaint, the Council undertook to provide Mrs A with the report outcome, within 10 days’ time (or, failing that, to update her as to when she could expect it, which would be, in any event, as soon as reasonably practicable), which would include a written apology for the delay in concluding the investigation.

Miss B complained that, in May 2019, the Council failed to conduct an appropriate Occupational Therapy assessment of her son, P, who was Autistic and also had physical mobility difficulties. She said the Council did not offer suitable adaptations to maintain P’s safety when using the bathroom. Miss B also complained that, when P remained unable to use the bathroom safely, the Council failed to consider her requests for a further assessment and adaptations in June and July 2020. The Ombudsman found that the Occupational Therapy assessment in May 2019 was appropriate and the recommended adaptations offered appropriate resolutions at the time. However, there should have been a further assessment when Miss B raised further concerns in June 2020. It appeared that P’s physical difficulties were overshadowed by a focus on behavioural issues around P’s use of the bathroom and a lack of recognition of the way that P’s Autism would impact on his ability to change the way he used the bathroom. The Council should have thought more about how to mitigate the safety concerns while work was ongoing to help P adapt to new routines and adopt different behaviours in the bathroom (or in case he was not be able to do so at all). The Council agreed to apologise to Miss B and offer £500 in recognition of the failures identified, as well as to ensure that a review process was in place to check that all safety concerns had been fully addressed. It agreed to do this within 1 month. The Council also agreed to provide all Disability Advisers and Occupational Therapists with appropriate initial or refresher training on Autism, as required, within 6 months.

Mr X complained that the Council failed to respond to his complaint about the general upkeep and maintenance of two parks which he believed posed a significant health and safety risk to the public. The Ombudsman decided that the Council should provide Mr X with a substantive written response to address his concerns and apologise for the delay in its response. The Ombudsman considered this to be an appropriate resolution to the complaint instead of conducting an investigation.

Ms X complained about an ongoing matter relating to the non-collection / inconsistent collection of her recycling and refuse waste. The Ombudsman decided that the Council should provide Miss X with a written apology (within 3 weeks) for the inconvenience she has suffered. It will also provide assurances to Ms X that the matter will be logged with its Collections Team Manager to monitor her collections for the next 3 months. It will also make its Collections Team aware of Ms X to ensure all efforts are made in future to collect her waste. The Ombudsman considered this to be an appropriate resolution to the complaint instead of conducting an investigation.

Mrs D, Mrs F and Miss P (“the complainants”) all complained that Cardiff Council’s “Assisted Lift” waste collection service had failed to meet their needs (or in Miss P’s case, her mother’s needs) as vulnerable residents on a consistent basis. They also complained that the Council had failed to respond adequately to their reports and complaints about problems with the Assisted Lift service. The Council had committed to provide the Assisted Lift service at the properties in question because the residents were disabled and could not present waste for collection themselves. However, the Ombudsman found that the Council had failed to provide a reliable service to the residents. They had all experienced repeated missed waste collections over extended periods of time and Mrs D had also experienced problems with her bins being left in unsafe positions. The Ombudsman found that these were serious service failures which amounted to a clear injustice, because some of the Council’s most vulnerable residents were denied reliable access to an essential service that should be available to all. As well as living with the stress of not knowing whether their waste would be collected, the residents often had to put up with a build-up of waste at their properties which had a significant negative impact on the enjoyment of their homes and potentially posed a risk to their health and safety. The Ombudsman considered that it was a serious indignity that the residents, 2 of whom were in their 90s, should have had to suffer such inconvenience for such a prolonged period of time. The Ombudsman also upheld the complaint about the Council’s response to the reports and complaints it received about the Assisted Lift service. He found that, despite receiving repeated formal complaints and 100s of calls from the complainants, the Council failed to properly acknowledge or act on their concerns. The Council frequently failed to rectify missed collections reported by the complainants within expected

Mrs D, Mrs F and Miss P (“the complainants”) all complained that Cardiff Council’s “Assisted Lift” waste collection service had failed to meet their needs (or in Miss P’s case, her mother’s needs) as vulnerable residents on a consistent basis. They also complained that the Council had failed to respond adequately to their reports and complaints about problems with the Assisted Lift service. The Council had committed to provide the Assisted Lift service at the properties in question because the residents were disabled and could not present waste for collection themselves. However, the Ombudsman found that the Council had failed to provide a reliable service to the residents. They had all experienced repeated missed waste collections over extended periods of time and Mrs D had also experienced problems with her bins being left in unsafe positions. The Ombudsman found that these were serious service failures which amounted to a clear injustice, because some of the Council’s most vulnerable residents were denied reliable access to an essential service that should be available to all. As well as living with the stress of not knowing whether their waste would be collected, the residents often had to put up with a build-up of waste at their properties which had a significant negative impact on the enjoyment of their homes and potentially posed a risk to their health and safety. The Ombudsman considered that it was a serious indignity that the residents, 2 of whom were in their 90s, should have had to suffer such inconvenience for such a prolonged period of time. The Ombudsman also upheld the complaint about the Council’s response to the reports and complaints it received about the Assisted Lift service. He found that, despite receiving repeated formal complaints and 100s of calls from the complainants, the Council failed to properly acknowledge or act on their concerns. The Council frequently failed to rectify missed collections reported by the complainants within expected