PSOW Individual Decisions

Mr A complained that Bridgend County Borough Council failed to respond to the complaint that was referred to the Council by our office in June 2025. The Ombudsman found that the Council failed to respond to the complaint raised which the Ombudsman said caused uncertainty and frustration for Mr A. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to, within 2 weeks, issue the complaint response which will include an apology and explanation for the delay and a £100 financial redress offer in recognition of the delays.

Mr A complained that the Council had not carried out regular maintenance of the waste ground next to his property and that the Council had not provided a response to his complaint. The Ombudsman found that the Council had not actioned a specialist report that related to the waste ground’s management. The Ombudsman also found that the Council had failed to provide a complaint response to Mr A. Therefore, it was agreed that, within 4 weeks of the decision letter, the Council should provide a complaint response to Mr A and, within 2 months of the decision letter, coppice the appropriate trees, subject to any relevant policies and approvals.

Mrs A complained about Bridgend County Council’s handling of the review of her child’s Individual Development Plan (IDP) and the subsequent complaint she made to it. Mrs A complained that the Council did not respond to her complaint in a timely manner and there was a lack of communication throughout. Mrs A also complained about the wording used in the IDP and the time taken to ensure it was correct was outside of statutory guidelines. The Ombudsman decided there had been a delay in the Council issuing the complaint response and that it failed to properly explain the reasons for the amendments to the first draft IDP. It was also unclear what period the IDP covered and when the next review would be undertaken. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without a formal investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to, within 4 weeks, apologise for the delay in its response, provide clarification around the wording of the first draft of the IDP, review the timeline within which the draft response should have been issued, and confirm with Mrs A when and how the next review would be undertaken.

It was alleged that the Member, in making particular remarks to the press, following a decision which the Council’s Standards Committee made about his professional conduct, failed to adhere to the Code of Conduct for members of Local Authorities. In particular, it was alleged that, while the Member was afforded political free speech, he failed to balance his right with the rights of others to be protected from unwarranted comments, which may damage their reputation and ability to carry out their duties without hindrance, and without consideration to the importance of not undermining public confidence in local democracy more widely. We decided to discontinue our investigation, because it was no longer proportionate or in the public interest to investigate further, in the light of the subsequent recognition and remorse shown by the Member in related proceedings. The Member said he would not do the same again, in the same circumstances.

Mr X complained that Bridgend County Borough Council had failed to respond to his complaint submitted to it in October 2024 regarding an administration error that occurred which resulted in him not being appointed as a school governor contrary to previous correspondence he had received. The Ombudsman concluded that the Council had failed to respond to your complaint in line with its internal complaint process. The Ombudsman said this caused uncertainty, frustration, and inconvenience to Mr X. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to issue Mr X with a complaint response within 2 weeks. The response should also include an apology and an explanation for the lack of updates and delay.

The Ombudsman’s office received a complaint that a Member (“the Member”) of Brackla Community Council (“the Community Council”) had breached the Code of Conduct.  It was alleged that the Member had maliciously and deliberately tried to discredit another member (“the Complainant”), during a Community Council meeting that was attended by other councillors and members of the public. The investigation considered whether the Member failed to comply with the following provisions of the Code of Conduct: 4(b) – You must show respect and consideration for others. 6(1)(a) – You must not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing your office or authority into disrepute. Witness accounts were obtained.  The investigation found that the Member had accused the Complainant of misusing his position as Cabinet Member of the County Borough Council during a Community Council meeting and in a WhatsApp group chat that comprised of Community Council members. The Ombudsman considered that the Member’s accusatory comments were not based on fact and concluded that the Member had failed to show respect and consideration towards the Complainant, in breach of paragraph 4(b) of the Code. It was also concluded that some of the Member’s comments could bring the Member’s office or authority into disrepute as they were made within a public forum, and that the Member’s conduct was therefore also suggestive of a breach of paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Code. The report on the investigation was referred to the Monitoring Officer of Bridgend County Borough Council, for consideration by its Standards Committee. The Standards Committee determined that the Member had failed to comply with paragraph 4(b) of the Code.  It determined that a censure be imposed on the Member.

Mr X complained that Bridgend County Borough Council failed to take action against a Bowls Club that is misusing a Premises License that has a restrictive covenant within the title. The Ombudsman concluded that the Council had failed to respond to Mr X’s complaint in line with its complaint process. The Ombudsman said this caused uncertainty, frustration, and inconvenience to Mr X. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to apologise for the delay, explain the reasons for the delay, and issue its complaint response, all within 2 weeks of the Ombudsman’s decision.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that a Member (“the Member”) of Bridgend County Borough Council (“the County Council”) and Porthcawl Town Council (“the Town Council”) had breached the Code of Conduct (“the Code”) by failing to declare an interest.  It was alleged that the Member had failed to declare a personal and / or prejudicial interest at 3 full Town Council meetings where actions were agreed in relation to an approval, consent, licence, permission or registration. The Code, at paragraph 11(1), requires members to declare personal interests.  At paragraph 12, the Code requires members to consider whether a personal interest might also be a prejudicial interest.  A member must consider whether a member of the public, who knew all the relevant facts, would think the personal interest was so significant that it would likely prejudice the member’s judgement. Paragraph 12(2)(a)(i) says there is an exemption from declaring a prejudicial interest in any business where it relates to another relevant authority of which they are a member.  However, paragraph 12(3) says the exemption ceases to apply where the business relates to the determination of any approval, consent, licence, permission or registration. Information was obtained from the County Council and the Town Council, including emails, minutes of meetings and documents related to Griffin Park.  The Member and Complainant provided information by email and also spoke to the Investigating Officer by telephone. The Ombudsman noted the agenda and minutes of the 3 meetings showed there were agenda items related to an approval to go ahead with a transfer, the termination of a lease and the renewal of a lease.  This suggested that an exemption under paragraph 12(2)(a)(i) did not apply for these items and that the Member should have declared a prejudicial interest.  The Member did not do so.  The Member also did not declare a personal interest for 1 of these items. The meeting minutes recorded that the Member remained

The Ombudsman received a complaint that a member (“the Member”) of Bridgend County Borough Council (“the County Council”) and Porthcawl Town Council (“the Town Council”) had breached the Code of Conduct (“the Code”) by failing to declare an interest.  It was alleged that the Member had failed to declare a personal and / or prejudicial interest at 3 full Town Council meetings where actions were agreed in relation to an approval, consent, licence, permission or registration. The Code, at paragraph 11(1), requires members to declare personal interests.  At paragraph 12, the Code requires members to consider whether a personal interest might also be a prejudicial interest.  A member must consider whether a member of the public, who knew all the relevant facts, would think the personal interest was so significant that it would likely prejudice the member’s judgement. Paragraph 12(2)(a)(i) says there is an exemption from declaring a prejudicial interest in any business where it relates to another relevant authority of which they are a member.  However, paragraph 12(3) says the exemption ceases to apply where the business relates to the determination of any approval, consent, licence, permission or registration. Information was obtained from the County Council and the Town Council, including emails, minutes of meetings and documents related to Griffin Park.  The Member and Complainant provided information by email and also spoke to the Investigating Officer by telephone. The Ombudsman noted the agenda and minutes of the 3 meetings showed there were agenda items related to an approval to go ahead with a transfer, the termination of a lease and the renewal of a lease.  This suggested that an exemption under paragraph 12(2)(a)(i) did not apply for these items and that the Member should have declared a prejudicial interest.  The Member did not do so.  The Member also did not declare a personal interest for 1 of these items. The meeting minutes recorded that the Member remained

Mrs P complained that Bridgend County Borough Council (“the Council”) failed to appropriately consider all relevant factors before it decided to recover full repayment of a Disabled Facilities Grant (“DFG”). She also complained that the Council did not properly explain its decision or address her statements that it had underestimated the deterioration of her, and her husband’s health, and consequent changes in their care needs. The Ombudsman found no evidence that the circumstances relating to Mr and Mrs P’s health and wellbeing were properly considered. In particular, the implications on Mrs P’s health, wellbeing and ability to remain safely in the property, given that Mr P could no longer provide care for her. Additionally, the Council failed to adequately explain why it did not consider those circumstances grounds for exemption of repayment and referred only to financial hardship. These failures amounted to maladministration, causing stress and confusion for the couple, who felt that their circumstances were being dismissed and overlooked unfairly. The Council agreed to apologise for the maladministration identified and to undertake a review of its decision whether to exempt Mr and Mrs P from repayment, with particular reference to health and wellbeing. It also agreed to remind relevant staff of the importance of ensuring that grant conditions are fully explained, as well as considering and documenting all the relevant circumstances when making and explaining decisions to recover grant monies. It agreed to do these things within 1 month.

Mr A complained about the actions taken following an incident at his son’s school. He said that when he complained to Bridgend County Borough Council (“the Council”) about this issue the response he received did not adequately address his concerns. The conduct of the school following the incident is excluded from the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. As such the Ombudsman only considered the aspects of Mr A’s complaint that related to his complaint to the Council. The Council did not acknowledge Mr A’s complaint and did not tell him that it would not be considered under its complaints procedure. The response that Mr A received from the Council also did not address all the issues he had raised or provide a full explanation as to why this was not possible. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr A for the failure to acknowledge his complaint and explain why his complaint was not considered under its complaints policy. It also agreed to, if possible, provide Mr A with further details of the review referred to in the complaint response he received. If this is not possible the Council agreed to provide Mr A with an explanation as to why this information cannot be shared.

Mr A complained that Bridgend County Borough Council had failed to deliver bin bags to his property. The Ombudsman found that Mr A had complained to the Council 5 weeks before approaching her office and the Council had not actioned his complaint emails. The Ombudsman said the delay caused frustration to Mr A and decided to settle the complaint without a formal investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to deliver bin bags to Mr A within 2 weeks and to issue a Stage 2 complaint response to him within 4 weeks.

Ms B complained about the lack of support she received from Bridgend County Borough Council when she was a foster carer. The Ombudsman found that the Council had not provided a full breakdown of the costs that Ms B received as a foster carer, as recommended by the stage 2 Independent Investigator. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. She sought and gained the Council’s agreement that within 20 working days it would send Mrs B a breakdown of the payments she received for each child she fostered. If the Council identified a shortfall in the funds paid to Ms B, it agreed that it would consider reimbursement.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that a Member (“the Member”) of Bridgend Town Council (“the Council”) breached the Code of Conduct. It was alleged that the Member had: failed to declare a personal and prejudicial interest in a Council meeting; had taken part in a discussion in the Council meeting when he should not have done given his interests; and that by taking part in the discussion, he had tried to influence a decision on the matter discussed to gain an advantage for his wife. Our finding, under section 69 of the Local Government Act 2000, was that our report on our investigation be referred to the Monitoring Officer of Bridgend County Borough Council for consideration by its Standards Committee. The Standards Committee found that the Member had failed to comply with the Code of Conduct. Its sanction was to suspend the Member from the Relevant Authority, as set out in the Local Government Act 2000, for 6 months. The Standards Committee decision is available here . The decision was subject to appeal by the Member. Following the appeal the Standards Committee decided to uphold the original 6 months suspension.

The Ombudsman received 2 complaints that a Member (“the Member”) of Porthcawl Town Council (“the Council”) breached the Code of Conduct. It was alleged by the first complainant that the Member had used racial slurs and disrespectful language towards other members of the Council on social media. It was alleged by the second complainant the Member had used disrespectful language towards the Former Clerk on social media and had refused to apologise at a Council meeting. Our finding, under section 69 of the Local Government Act 2000, was that our report on our investigation be referred to the Monitoring Officer of Bridgend County Borough Council for consideration by its Standards Committee. The Standards Committee found that the Member had failed to comply with the Code of Conduct. Its sanction was to suspend the Member from the Relevant Authority, as set out in the Local Government Act 2000, for 2 months.  The Member did not appeal the decision. The Standards Committee’s decision is available here.

Mr H complained that Bridgend County Borough Council failed to issue a response to his complaint, which was originally made to it in March 2023. The Ombudsman found that the Council issued its Stage 1 response in May 2023 and despite Mr H responding to advise that he disputed the outcome, it failed to escalate his complaint to Stage 2. She said this caused additional frustration and uncertainty to Mr H. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to apologise to Mr H for failing to escalate his complaint, log and formally investigate a Stage 2 investigation and issue its response within3 weeks. Issue a time and trouble payment of £50 in recognition of its failure to escalate the issue to Stage 2.

Mr B complained that Bridgend County Borough Council had not submitted a full response to his complaint. The Ombudsman found although the Council had acknowledged that Mr B had not received a full response to his complaints, a full response had not been provided. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Health Board’s agreement to apologise to Mr B and to provide him with a full complaint response, within 30 working days.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that a member (“the Member”) of Bridgend County Borough Council (“the Council”) had breached the Code of Conduct for members. The Complainant was concerned that the Member had behaved in an aggressive and disrespectful way towards her during a Development Committee site visit in January 2023. The site visit was arranged so that members of the Development Committee could better understand the site in relation to an application it received, which concerned the route for construction traffic. It was alleged that the Member pointed his finger at the Complainant, encroached upon her personal space, and was aggressive in his manner and tone. It was also alleged he called the Complainant a “silly woman”. We gathered relevant information from the Monitoring Officer for Bridgend County Borough Council, and we interviewed a number of individuals who were present at the site visit including a local resident, a Councillor and member of Council staff in attendance. We found the site visit was contentious in nature and tensions were running high, given its sensitivity from the start. On balance it appeared the Member could have handled matters better and his behaviour presented to others as being aggressive. There was insufficient evidence to suggest the member had used the word “woman” in a derogatory term. We found the Member’s behaviour was suggestive of a breach of paragraph 4(b) of the Code which says that members must show respect and consideration of others when conducting council business. Advice was issued to the Member to be mindful of his future behaviour, particularly when trying to manage contentious and sensitive situations, and to be mindful of his use of language, and how this could be perceived by others. Given this was an isolated incident, it was not proportionate or in the public interest to take any further action in relation to the matter.

Mr B complained about the actions of Bridgend County Borough Council regarding a planning application for a local bus depot on residential land. He said that there was a lack of consultation with residents. The Ombudsman found that it could not investigate Mr B’s concerns as the planning application had not yet been determined. However, the Ombudsman was concerned with the adequacy of the Council’s Stage 2 response to Mr B’s initial complaint. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to apologise to Mr B and to provide him with a full complaint response including addressing concerns about consultation with residents during the planning application process, within 20 working days.

Mrs A complained about the information provided by the Council to two Professional Strategy Meetings held by the local Safeguarding Board in relation to allegations made against her. She complained that the Council’s submissions to the Meetings were inaccurate, biased against her and included irrelevant information intended to cast aspersions on her personal and professional character. Mrs A also complained about restrictions placed upon contact arrangements with her nieces. The Ombudsman found that the Council had not yet properly considered the matters under the statutory Social Services complaints procedure and/or its Corporate Complaints procedure. The Council agreed to write to Mrs A to agree her heads of complaint and to, thereafter, consider these under the appropriate procedure(s). The Ombudsman considered this to be an appropriate resolution and did not investigate.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that a Member (“the Member”) of Bridgend Town Council (“the Council”) posted comments on social media that alleged impropriety on the part of members of the Council. The Ombudsman’s investigation considered whether the Member’s conduct may have breached paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Code of Conduct.  Information was obtained from the Council, including minutes of relevant Council meetings.  The complainant provided screenshots of comments posted by the Member.  Witnesses, including the complainant, were interviewed.  The Member was interviewed. The Ombudsman’s investigation found that the Member posted comments on social media which alleged that members of the Council may have acted improperly in awarding a contract.  The comments were visible to members of the public.  The Ombudsman found that the comments were serious and suggested impropriety and had the potential to affect the Council’s reputation and the public’s confidence in local democracy.  As a result, the Ombudsman found that the Member’s conduct could reasonably be regarded as bringing the Council into disrepute and was suggestive of a breach of paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Code. In considering whether further action was required in the public interest, the Ombudsman took into account the Member’s explanation for his comments in that he said he had genuine concerns about how the contract had been awarded as the Council had gone against the advice of its Clerk.  The Ombudsman noted that the minutes of the Council meeting, in which the relevant contract was awarded, documented that the Council’s decision was out of step with the explicit advice given by the Clerk.  The Ombudsman found that the Member’s explanation about his concerns appeared to have been founded on what he believed at the time and therefore fell within the bounds of freedom of expression.  The Member did not report the concerns he had but explained he did not know how to do so.  The Ombudsman found that the Member

Mr K complained that Bridgend County Borough Council failed to provide him with the appropriate support to meet his needs. The Ombudsman found that whilst Mr K had raised a complaint with the Council, he only received a partial response to his concerns in November2022. She said this caused frustration to Mr K. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Councils agreement to provide Mr K with an apology and explanation for the delay in responding to his concerns, provide a complaint response which includes details on how to escalate his concerns if he remains dissatisfied within 30 working days.

Mr A complained that the Council had not formally responded to his complaint or further correspondence for 5 months. The Ombudsman was concerned that Mr A had not received a response and about the Council’s failure to adhere to its complaints policy. The Council responded to the complaint and apologised to Mr A for the delay. It confirmed that additional resources had been put in place to avoid similar issues from occurring in the future. Based on the action already taken, the Ombudsman sought and obtained the Council’s agreement to, within 1 month, provide Mr A with a time and trouble payment of £100, in recognition of the inconvenience caused. This action was accepted as an alternative to an investigation.

Mr Z complained that Bridgend County Borough Council had decided to suspend his landlord’s improvement notice which meant his repairs would not be completed until after he had been evicted. The Ombudsman found that Mr Z had complained to the Council but the Council had failed to formally respond to his concerns. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to apologise to Mr Z for failing to respond to his complaint and provide him with a complaint response within 4 weeks.

Mr A complained about delays in Bridgend County Borough Council (“the Council”) progressing his son’s amended annual Special Educational Needs (“SEN”) review statement. He was also dissatisfied with the Council’s handling of his complaint and the robustness of its complaint response. The Ombudsman’s investigation found that shortcomings in communication were a factor in both aspects of Mr A’s complaints. The Ombudsman recognised the staffing challenges that the Council’s Directorate faced at the time, which was compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, she felt that more could have been done to communicate at a much earlier stage with Mr A, about the SEN review statement delays, and the measures in place until they were issued. She therefore upheld this part of Mr A’s complaint. The Ombudsman found that when it came to the handling of Mr A’s complaint, the Council had not acknowledged or properly explained how it had dealt with his previous complaint correspondence in its complaint response to him. The Ombudsman concluded that the Council’s failings amounted to maladministration and had caused an injustice to Mr A. She upheld both parts of his complaint. The Ombudsman recommended that the Council apologise to Mr A for the communication shortcomings and if it did not do so, the Directorate should introduce a system for acknowledging and explaining the process for Stage 1 informal complaints made direct to it. The Council agreed to implement the recommendations.