PSOW Individual Decisions

Mr A complained about the actions of Caerphilly County Borough Council in the exercise of its social services functions. The Council investigated Mr A’s concerns under its corporate complaints policy. The Ombudsman decided that the Council should have investigated Mr A’s complaint in line with The Social Services Complaints Procedure (Wales) Regulations 2014 and the Council’s own policies. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to, within 2 weeks, contact Mr A to apologise that it did not correctly investigate his concerns in the first instance, and agree to reconsider the concerns he raised in his submission.

Mr J complained that a joint risk assessment undertaken by the Council and the Health Board and provided to a Supported Housing Provider (SHP) was missing key information about his son’s needs. This led to him being placed in what Mr J believed to be an unsuitable placement. Mr J also complained that the Council was not willing to carry out its own investigation into his concerns about the risk assessment when a proposed joint investigation with the Health Board did not progress. The investigation against the Council identified failings around documentation and how aspects of the care co-ordinator role had been carried out. However, the Ombudsman concluded that, prior to the placement, the SHP was provided with sufficient key information about the needs of Mr J’s son by the Health Board who was jointly involved in commissioning the placement. In relation to the Council and the Health Board, this part of Mr J’s complaint was not upheld. The Ombudsman found that an opportunity for the Council to identify and learn lessons from Mr J’s complaint was missed by its decision not to carry out its own investigation. The injustice for Mr J was that he had to complain further in order to obtain answers. This part of Mr J’s complaint was upheld. The recommendations to the Council included apologising to Mr J and carrying out an audit across the Community Mental Health Teams in order to satisfy itself that the requirements of the care co-ordinator role, as well as wider processes and systems, are being met. As part of the audit process the Council was asked to engage with the Health Board as appropriate. The Health Board was invited to engage with the Council around the audit recommendation set out above, as this would also provide an opportunity to ensure that any wider points of learning around systems and processes in relation to jointly commissioned care are maximised.

Mr C complained that the Caerphilly County Borough Council had not taken appropriate action in response to safeguarding concerns he raised on behalf of his relative, Mr A. The Ombudsman decided that the Council had not handled Mr C’s complaints in accordance with its procedures. The Council had not properly considered Mr A’s wish for Mr C to act on his behalf, or his views on the complaint. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to share the outcome of her consideration with the complaints team, to promote understanding regarding consent. The Council also agreed to provide feedback to Social Services to ensure that service users’ wishes are sought appropriately.

Mrs A complained that Caerphilly County Borough Council (“the Council”) failed to provide her with information about homecare charges and was delayed in commencing the financial assessment, which resulted in a large and unexpected cost for care fees. The Ombudsman found that the Council had failed to provide relevant written guidance when homecare services commenced and did not provide a reminder or written confirmation when a second episode of care commenced. The Council did not request details to inform a contributions letter nor a letter advising of the cost of her homecare contribution until over a year after the care had commenced. The Council has also not addressed what steps have been taken to improve communication. The Ombudsman considered that the failure to provide information and the sustained period of poor/delayed communication by the Council resulted in a significant balance accruing which had an unexpected financial impact. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to reduce the owed care fees by £500, agree to a flexible repayment plan for the remainder of the fees, complete a review of internal processes to improve communication and write to Mrs A to set out what was identified and what steps have been taken to improve communication processes.

Mrs A complained that the Council charged an incorrect invoice for her husband, Mr B’s, ongoing care after he was discharged from Hospital. The Ombudsman was concerned that Mrs A considered that the Council provided her with incorrect information regarding the charges as it had identified errors in its complaints response, which the Ombudsman said caused frustration and confusion to Mrs A. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement that, within 4 weeks, it would provide Mrs A with a letter clearly stating the outstanding balance and explain how this balance was calculated.

Mrs A complained that Caerphilly County Borough Council refused to escalate her social services complaint about her late husband. The Ombudsman found that the Council had refused to escalate Mrs A’s complaint to Stage 2 of the complaints process. She said that this caused frustration and uncertainty to Mrs A. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to write to Mrs A with an apology for the oversight and to confirm that her complaint has been escalated to Stage 2, including explaining the next steps within 4 weeks.

Mr A complained on behalf of his mother, Ms B. The investigation considered whether the Council had undertaken a thorough investigation to ascertain the reason(s) why there were such delays in the re-assessments of care and support service contributions and whether appropriate action had been undertaken to ensure that this issue did not re-occur the next financial year. We also considered if the rationale for, and the amount of the accumulated debt, was communicated to Ms B appropriately and if the repayment plan and the planned increase in direct debit without consent/authorisation was appropriate. Based on the material obtained during the course of the investigation, it was evident that the re-assessment process was protracted and there were gaps in communication with Ms B which compounded matters. The Council had already increased staffing to address the re-assessment backlog, which it reported was decreasing. However the Ombudsman felt that the Council’s Non-Residential Charging Policy (“the Policy”) and written communication with service users could be clearer, and should include a more realistic timeframe for re-assessments to manage expectations, and clarification that whilst the direct debit mandate permitted the revision of payment without further authorisation, this should be made clear in the Policy. The Council agreed to undertake the following in response to a proposal made by the Ombudsman to settle the complaint: • Within 1 month, the Council will provide Ms B with an apology in her primary language which acknowledges the issues in the process that have caused her distress and necessitated the making of this complaint and to pay her £250 for the distress caused and the time and trouble in making her complaint. • Within 3 months, the Council will review and revise the Non-Residential Charging Policy; review and revise the April re-assessment letters sent to service users; and, carry out an internal investigation of the re-assessment process.

Mr and Mrs A complained that the Council had not responded to their complaint about action taken regarding a bridleway near to their property. The Ombudsman found that the correspondence, from Mr and Mrs A to the Council, outlined their expectations for it to manage the concerns raised as a complaint. However, the Council had not investigated or responded to Mr and Mrs A in line with its complaints process. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to investigate the complaint and provide a full response, detailing the outcome of the investigation and any action taken or planned. The Council agreed to do this within 4 weeks and to provide an apology for not considering the matter as a complaint at an earlier opportunity.

Mr A complained that Caerphilly County Borough Council failed to consistently collect his household waste for over twelve months. Mr A said that non-collection remained an issue both with and without the assisted lift scheme, and at two different properties. The Ombudsman decided that the Council’s records showed that it had escalated Mr A’s most recent concerns for investigation, but it had not provided Mr A with a formal response. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to apologise to Mr A that he had to contact the Ombudsman, offer Mr A the opportunity to discuss his current concerns about waste collection, investigate Mr A’s concerns, and provide a formal response explaining any issues identified and any proposed action to remedy the issues, within one month.

Mr A complained that Caerphilly County Borough Council (‘the Council’) had not communicated effectively with him and had failed to take action in response to reports of anti-social behaviour and noise from his neighbours. The Ombudsman decided that the Council’s procedures for investigating noise complaints were unclear, that Mr A had not been provided with information about requesting a multi-agency review of his case, and that the Council had not apologised for delays in keeping him informed. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to write to Mr A within 2 weeks to apologise for the poor communication and review its procedures for investigating noise complaints and notifying complainants of their right to apply for an Anti-Social Behaviour Case Review (Community Trigger) within 2 months.

Ms A complained that Caerphilly County Borough Council had failed to respond to a verbal complaint she made in August 2024 regarding housing support. The Ombudsman decided that whilst the Council did return Ms A’s call to discuss her concerns, it was recorded as a service request rather than a complaint. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement that within 1 week it would contact Ms A to establish the terms of her complaint. Within a further 2 weeks, it would send a complaint response addressing the points agreed.

Miss A complained that the records held by the Council’s Social Services Department’s relating to her daughter were inaccurate, incomplete and that false information was recorded. She also complained that the Council did not appropriately declare potential conflicts of interest with persons involved in her daughter’s case. The Ombudsman decided that whilst the Council had ensured an independent investigator had carried out an investigation of Miss A’s complaint, it had not provided an action plan in response to there commendations within the resulting report and did not offer Miss A the opportunity to discuss the findings of the report. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement that it would write to Miss A to explain what action it will take in response to the recommendations and to offer her the opportunity to discuss the response and report with an appropriate officer. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without investigation.

Mr A complained that the Stage 2 complaint response he received from the Council, regarding his uncle and adult social care, did not address all the concerns he had raised. The Ombudsman decided that the Stage 2 complaint response had not fully addressed the issues Mr A had raised in his complaint to the Council, or the concerns he had raised about how safeguarding concerns were dealt with. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement that within 1 month it would apologise to Mr A for not fully addressing his Stage 2 complaint, address the concerns he had raised and remind social workers of their responsibilities when dealing with information relating to safeguarding concerns.

Miss B complained that Caerphilly County Borough Council failed to respond to a complaint concerning repeated missed refuse/recycling collections. The Ombudsman found that the Council failed to explain to Miss B that her complaint was being dealt with as a service request. This caused additional frustration and inconvenience for Miss B. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to write to Miss B to apologise, to log a complaint and issue a formal response within 4 weeks.

Mr X complained that Caerphilly County Borough Council failed to respond to all of his concerns in its complaint response. The Ombudsman found that while the Council had provided a response to Mr X, it had overlooked other issues Mr X had raised in his complaint. 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, within 2 weeks, write to Mr X with an apology and explanation for the oversight and issue a further complaint response addressing the outstanding concerns.

Ms A complained that Caerphilly County Borough Council failed to respond to the majority of the issues she raised in her Social Services complaint. Ms A said that the Council inaccurately claimed that it had addressed the issues in a previous meeting. Ms A said she was told that the meeting was not the appropriate forum to discuss her concerns. The Ombudsman concluded that there was no evidence that Ms A’s concerns had been previously discussed. When Ms A submitted a formal complaint, the Council declined to respond to all but one of the issues, and therefore failed to adhere to its complaint policy. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement, within 2 weeks, to apologise to Ms A, and to respond to her complaint in line with Stage 1 of the Council’s Social Services Complaints Policy.

Ms A was dissatisfied with the Council’s response to her complaint and requested an independent investigation. The Ombudsman found that the Council had provided a response to the concerns raised by Ms A at Stage 1 of its complaint policy. Ms A was dissatisfied with the response. However, the Council had not provided Ms A with the opportunity for an independent investigation in line with Stage 2 of its complaint policy. Further, the Council had not provided Ms A a full explanation about this decision. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to provide Ms A with a full response clarifying the rationale for not conducting an independent investigation. The Council agreed to do this within 2 weeks.

Miss A complained about the action taken by the Council to address housing repairs and maintenance required in her property, specifically, to address issues with the front door and windows. The Ombudsman found that there had been some delays with the action taken by the Council to address the issues reported. She considered that this had caused frustration and uncertainty for Miss A. Although a new door had been provided, Miss A reported issues with it and was unsure of the action planned to address this. The Council had planned to investigate concerns with the windows in the property but had not yet confirmed action to address this. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to, within 3 weeks, complete the actions necessary to investigate the issues with the door and windows in the property and provide an action plan for how any identified issues will be addressed. The Council agreed to complete all the necessary work to the front door and windows within 6 weeks.

Ms A complained that Caerphilly County Borough Council declined to investigate her complaint about the respite care it commissioned for her father. The Ombudsman decided that the Council misinformed Ms A that because the care home was in a different area, it could not deal with the complaint and that she had to contact another local authority for a response. This caused unnecessary delay. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to offer Ms A an apology that it did not accept her complaint, and that she had to approach a different local authority and the Ombudsman to obtain a response. The Council also agreed to investigate Ms A’s complaint under Stage 2of the Social Services complaints process within 30 working days.

Mrs X complained that Caerphilly County Borough Council had repeatedly failed to collect her waste and recycling. The Ombudsman found that the Council had not provided accurate information to Mrs X. The Ombudsman found that the lack of accurate information contributed to the Mrs X’s bins not being collected for long periods of time. The Ombudsman said that this caused frustration and inconvenience to Mrs X and decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to, within 1 month: Apologise to Mrs X for the missed collections and the incorrect information provided to her. Offer Mrs X £150 redress for the inconvenience caused. Inform refuse staff involved in the collection of Mrs X’s waste and recycling that her bins should be collected according to the information provided on the Council’s website from now on.

Mr X complained that Caerphilly County Borough Council had failed to respond to his complaint about a delayed death certificate, submitted to it in August 2024. The Ombudsman concluded that the Council had failed to log and respond to Mr X’s complaint in line with its complaints process. It had also failed to signpost Mr X to the Coroner’s Office to pursue his complaint. 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 oversight, delay and inconvenience caused, issue its complaint response, and signpost Mr X to the Coroner’s Office complaint department to pursue his complaint, within 3 weeks.

Mr A complained that he was unhappy with Caerphilly County Borough Council’s (“the Council”) actions and complaint handling regarding a neighbouring planning application. Mr A said that he had been negatively impacted by the development. The Ombudsman found that the Council had not acknowledged or responded to Mr A’s complaint. She acknowledged that this caused delays and frustration for Mr A. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to acknowledge and respond to Mr A’s complaint within 1 month.

Miss Y complained that Caerphilly County Borough Council failed to respond to a complaint she raised concerning asbestos in her son’s bedroom. The Ombudsman found that the Association undertook a Stage 1 investigation but failed to inform Miss Y of her right to escalate to Stage 2. This caused additional frustration and uncertainty for Miss Y. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to write to Miss Y, within 7 days, with an apology for failing to inform her of her right to escalate and to escalate the complaint for a Stage 2 investigation.

Mr X complained about the actions of a social worker from Caerphilly County Borough Council. He also complained about the way in which his complaint had been handled by the Council. The Ombudsman found that the Council had failed to properly escalate Mr X’s complaint to Stage 2 of its Social Services Complaints Procedure. She said that this caused frustration for Mr X. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to write to Mr X within 2 weeks to apologise for failing to properly escalate his complaint and to confirm to him that his complaint has been escalated to Stage 2 and an independent investigator will be appointed.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that a member (“the Member”) of Caerphilly County Borough Council and Penyrheol, Trecenydd & Energlyn Community Council (“the Councils”) had breached the Code of Conduct. We received 4 complaints that the Councillor had breached the Councils’ Codes of Conduct.  The complainants were concerned about a photograph and caption that the Councillor had posted on Facebook.  The photograph was of the Councillor standing on a beach holding a rifle.  The accompanying message he posted said “Ogmore-by-Sea tonight for a quick swim and make sure there wasn’t (sic) any English people trying to cross the channel”. We found that the Councillor posted the message on Facebook and deleted it 2 weeks or so later when the national media, politicians and members of the public were concerned about the appropriateness of the post.  At this time the Councillor posted an apology if he had offended anyone, and he said his post was ill-judged. We found that the Police had received allegations that the Councillor had posted a malicious communication and that the Councillor had agreed to the restorative justice process to resolve matters.  The Councillor made a full admission to the crime of a racially aggravated Section 5 Public Order offence.  He signed a Police statement where he explained he had not intended to cause offence but to have a friendly joke with his English friends.  He accepted with hindsight that it may have been capable of upsetting others, he had voluntarily disclaimed ownership of the air rifle (which was not operative) to the Police, and he had issued an apology on Facebook. We found that the Councillor had been suspended by his party, Plaid Cymru, pending their investigations and he had subsequently been reinstated. Overall, we concluded that the Councillor’s conduct was suggestive of a breach of paragraph: 6(1)(a) of the Councils’ Codes of Conduct. This says that councillors must not conduct themselves in a way which could reasonably be