PSOW Individual Decisions

Mr A complained about the way in which his complaint, regarding the standard of care his son had received from the Council’s Children’s Social Services department, had been handled by the Council. Specifically, that his Social Services complaint had not been escalated to Stage 2 and that there had been delays in complaint updates. The Ombudsman found that, although the Council had acknowledged and considered Mr A’s complaint at Stage 1, it failed to escalate to Stage 2. Furthermore, the Council delayed in updating Mr A following a complaints meeting, which Mr A said had caused inconvenience and uncertainty. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to, within 2 months of issuing the decision letter, write to Mr A to apologise for the delays in updates and for not escalating his complaint to Stage 2. It also agreed to instigate the Stage 2 complaints investigation and appoint an Independent Investigator.

Ms A complained that Cardiff Council failed to repair her leaking guttering since the Summer of 2024. The Ombudsman found there had been a significant delay with the Council attending to repairs to Ms A’s guttering which caused additional frustration and uncertainty for Ms A. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to write to Ms A, within one week, with its apology and an offer of £100 for the time and trouble. It also agreed to renew the guttering within six weeks

Mr B complained about the way Cardiff Council responded to an application for rehousing he made in November 2024. The Ombudsman found deficiencies in the standard of record keeping by the Council. This included inconsistent documentation of telephone conversations and the reasons for decisions made relating to Mr B’s application. This caused uncertainty and frustration to Mr B. She decided to settle the complaint without investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to, with 1 month, apologise to Mr B for these failings and to remind relevant officers of the importance of maintaining accurate records when dealing with housing allocations.

Mrs B complained that Cardiff Council had failed to adequately address her concerns and refused to formally respond to her complaint. The Ombudsman found that whilst the Council had correctly refused to respond to her complaint under the Social Services Complaints Process, the Council could have responded under its Corporate Complaints Process. She said that this caused frustration and uncertainty to Mrs B. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to write to Mrs B to provide an apology for the failure to consider her complaint under the Corporate Complaints Process and to issue a Stage 1 complaint response within 3 weeks.

Ms T complained about how the Council responded to her regarding issues with noise transference and repairs required in her flat, as well as her requests for reasonable adjustments in communication. Overall, the Council responded sensitively and proportionately to Ms T’s complaints about noise transference within the limitations of what it was able to do. This element of Ms T’s complaint was not upheld. Whilst there were a number of factors impacting on the repairs processes but an absence of proactive follow-up and poor communication on the part of the Council contributed to long delays in getting repairs inspected and addressed. We upheld Ms T’s complaints that her repairs were not addressed within a reasonable timeframe. The Council agreed to communicate with Ms T by email “in the main” and, largely, it adhered to this agreement. However, it failed to consider Ms T’s communication needs in the context of its operational capabilities and although an informal agreement was made for Ms T’s allocated housing officer to act as a communication link, this practice was not always successful and there was no contingency in place for times when the housing officer was unavailable. It also did not help to manage Ms T’s expectations about what was possible, in terms of arranging convenient appointments, or to establish a consistent level of service. Therefore, this element of the complaint was also upheld. The Council was already in the process of reviewing and developing its Repairs Policy, exploring options for a new IT system that could meet all the requirements for the system. The Council also agreed to apologise to Ms T and offer her £500 in recognition of the failings identified. It agreed to contact Ms T to discuss her communication needs, to confirm any adjustments to support her, and to ensure that any agreed adjustments are clearly recorded and shared with Ms T and relevant staff. It also agreed to remind relevant staff of the importance of keeping tenants informed

Miss A complained that the Council failed to issue the Stage 2 outcome of her complaint within a reasonable time, despite being told her investigation was complete. The Ombudsman found that this leaves Miss A with unanswered questions about the outcome of her complaint and decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to within 4 weeks issue the Stage 2 response letter to Miss A.

Ms T complained about how the Council responded to her regarding issues with noise transference and repairs required in her flat, as well as her requests for reasonable adjustments in communication. Overall, the Council responded sensitively and proportionately to Ms T’s complaints about noise transference within the limitations of what it was able to do. This element of Ms T’s complaint was not upheld. Whilst there were a number of factors impacting on the repairs processes but an absence of proactive follow-up and poor communication on the part of the Council contributed to long delays in getting repairs inspected and addressed. We upheld Ms T’s complaints that her repairs were not addressed within a reasonable timeframe. The Council agreed to communicate with Ms T by email “in the main” and, largely, it adhered to this agreement. However, it failed to consider Ms T’s communication needs in the context of its operational capabilities and although an informal agreement was made for Ms T’s allocated housing officer to act as a communication link, this practice was not always successful and there was no contingency in place for times when the housing officer was unavailable. It also did not help to manage Ms T’s expectations about what was possible, in terms of arranging convenient appointments, or to establish a consistent level of service. Therefore, this element of the complaint was also upheld. The Council was already in the process of reviewing and developing its Repairs Policy, exploring options for a new IT system that could meet all the requirements for the system. The Council also agreed to apologise to Ms T and offer her £500 in recognition of the failings identified. It agreed to contact Ms T to discuss her communication needs, to confirm any adjustments to support her, and to ensure that any agreed adjustments are clearly recorded and shared with Ms T and relevant staff. It also agreed to remind relevant staff of the importance of keeping tenants informed

Mr A complained that Cardiff Council failed to respond to his complaints that he submitted in October 2025. The Ombudsman found that the Council had responded to Mr A’s initial correspondence however it had overlooked his second complaint. The Ombudsman said that this 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 4 weeks, apologise for the delay and explain the reasons for it, issue its complaint response, and offer a £150 redress payment for the delay and in recognition of the time and trouble.

Mr C made a complaint on behalf of his brother, Mr B, about whether Cardiff Council (“the Council”) acted in accordance with relevant legislation, policy and procedure (internal and external) and considered all information submitted when determining an application made for a Disabled Facilities Grant (“DFG”, a council grant that helps to meet the costs of adapting a disabled person’s home to improve their independence) on behalf of Mr B. The investigation found that the Council had acted in accordance with its Adaptions Criteria and Guidance and considered all information submitted when determining an application made for a DFG on behalf of Mr B. The Ombudsman did not uphold this complaint.

Mr A complained about Cardiff Council’s handling of concerns about parking and enforcement issues. Mr A complained to the Council about repeated misuse of the public highway and pavement outside his home, but had not received a complaint response. The Ombudsman found that the Council had not provided a response to Mr A’s complaint. Mr A was inconvenienced by the Council’s failure to respond to his concerns, which caused him stress, uncertainty and frustration. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to, within 4 weeks, provide Mr A with a written response to his complaints, together with a written apology for the failure to address his concerns.

Mr A complained that Cardiff Council failed to address the concerns he raised regarding his glass bin collection. The Ombudsman found that, while the Council had provided a complaint response, it did not provide an explanation to Mr A. The Ombudsman said this caused uncertainty and frustration for Mr A and decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to, within 2 weeks, write to Mr A to provide reassurance and outline the steps the Council is taking to monitor the situation.

Mr A complained that Cardiff Council failed to respond to the complaint he submitted in July 2025. The Ombudsman found that the Council had failed to provide a formal complaint response to Mr A and said that this 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 4 weeks, provide the complaint response, apologise for the delay and explain why this happened, and offer a £50 financial redress payment in recognition of the delays.

Mr B, who lives on a Gypsy and Traveller site (“the Site”), complained that his pitch was overcrowded, there was a failure by Cardiff Council to maintain his utility block, and there was difficulty in purchasing electricity. During the investigation of Mr B’s complaint, concerns were identified about how the Council had managed the whole of the Site. The Ombudsman’s Own Initiative powers were used, which allow for an investigation to be extended when related issues are identified during a current investigation, to extend the investigation. The extended investigation examined whether the Council had complied with its legal duties in relation to the Site, whether there had been service failure or maladministration in relation to the Council’s maintenance of the utility blocks on the Site, and whether there had been maladministration or service failure in relation to the management of the residents’ electricity supply on the Site. The investigation found that the facilities in place on Mr B’s pitch were not appropriate given the number of residents and needs of the individuals. The investigation also found that there had been a failure to maintain Mr B’s utility block. The ability to purchase electricity was considered as part of the extended investigation. In respect of the extended investigation, it was found that there was a longstanding issue with demand exceeding availability of pitches in this area. This had been impacted by a number of factors, including the area on which the Site sits being previously deemed unsustainable which impacted the Council’s ability to secure funding for redevelopment. Significant progress is now being made in this regard, with a Shore Protection Scheme underway which has changed the status of the Site. The Council has also progressed the purchase of additional land as part of a plan to expand and develop the Site. However, the investigation found that, although the Council had undertaken a significant amount of complex work to progres

Mr B, who lives on a Gypsy and Traveller site (“the Site”), complained that his pitch was overcrowded, there was a failure by Cardiff Council to maintain his utility block, and there was difficulty in purchasing electricity. During the investigation of Mr B’s complaint, concerns were identified about how the Council had managed the whole of the Site. The Ombudsman’s Own Initiative powers were used, which allow for an investigation to be extended when related issues are identified during a current investigation, to extend the investigation. The extended investigation examined whether the Council had complied with its legal duties in relation to the Site, whether there had been service failure or maladministration in relation to the Council’s maintenance of the utility blocks on the Site, and whether there had been maladministration or service failure in relation to the management of the residents’ electricity supply on the Site. The investigation found that the facilities in place on Mr B’s pitch were not appropriate given the number of residents and needs of the individuals. The investigation also found that there had been a failure to maintain Mr B’s utility block. The ability to purchase electricity was considered as part of the extended investigation. In respect of the extended investigation, it was found that there was a longstanding issue with demand exceeding availability of pitches in this area. This had been impacted by a number of factors, including the area on which the Site sits being previously deemed unsustainable which impacted the Council’s ability to secure funding for redevelopment. Significant progress is now being made in this regard, with a Shore Protection Scheme underway which has changed the status of the Site. The Council has also progressed the purchase of additional land as part of a plan to expand and develop the Site. However, the investigation found that, although the Council had undertaken a significant amount of complex work to progres

Mr A complained about Cardiff Council’s response to his complaint about his council tax payment plan. The Ombudsman found that following Mr A’s email about his concerns, the Council failed to provide him with information on how to submit a formal complaint or to log and respond to his concerns under its complaints process. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to apologise to Mr A for not addressing his concerns via the Council’s Corporate Comments, Complaints and Compliments Policy and to issue a complaint response. The Council agreed to do this within 4 weeks of the Ombudsman’s decision.

Mr A complained about Cardiff Council’s handling of his application for a vehicle crossover outside his home. The Council approved the application in writing, but days later reversed the approval, without notice, on grounds already know at the time of the site inspection. Mr A complained to the Council but did not receive a complaint response. The Ombudsman found that, although the Council had acknowledged and considered Mr A’s complaint, it was closed without him being informed or a complaint response provided. Mr A was inconvenienced by the Council’s failure to respond to his concerns, which caused him stress, anxiety and frustration. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to, within 4 weeks, provide Mr A with a written response to his complaints, together with a written apology for the delay in addressing his concerns.

Mr F complained that Cardiff Council improperly issued him a warning notice for “illegal dumping” of waste outside his property, and that the warning and the Council’s response to his complaint contained incorrect information regarding his waste collection day. Mr F also complained about a lack of clarity around the correct colour for waste disposal bags. The Ombudsman found that Mr F was improperly issued a warning because the Council incorrectly stated that his collection day was a day later than it is, which the Ombudsman said caused Mr F distress and frustration. The Ombudsman also found that the Council’s website did not specify the accepted colour of waste disposal bags, which she said caused Mr F confusion. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without a formal investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to, within 2 weeks, apologise to Mr F for the distress and inconvenience caused to him by the correspondence he received and the error regarding his waste collection date, provide assurances to Mr F that the incorrect correspondence would have no ongoing impact on him (should any future potential incidents of incorrect waste placement occur), and to offer him a redress payment of £50. The Council also agreed to update the guidance on its website to clarify the accepted colour of waste disposal bags within 8 weeks.

Miss A complained about waste management by Cardiff Council. She complained that the Council had consistently failed to collect her waste. Miss A also complained that the explanation offered by the Council, that parked vehicles obstruct access for the refuse lorry, failed to recognise that traffic management and enforcement of obstructions are the Council’s responsibility. When the Ombudsman sought the Council’s comments on the concerns raised, it proposed issuing a fuller coordinated response with its Highways, Housing and Waste service as it had monitored several further missed collections due to vehicles obstructing access to its refuse lorry. Instead of investigating the complaint, the Ombudsman obtained the Council’s agreement to issue a further coordinated response within 3 weeks.

Mr C complained that Cardiff Council had not repaired a roof leak for 2 years, leading to problems with damp and mould in his home. Mr C also said that the Council had not responded to complaints about other repairs that had not been completed. The Ombudsman decided that there had been unreasonable delays in carrying out repairs to Mr C’s home. Although the Council’s complaint responses stated that work would be progressed, they did not provide any explanation for the delays or any timescale for work to be completed. The Ombudsman also decided that the Council had not responded to all of Mr C’s complaints. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to provide a full response to each of Mr C’s complaints within 1 month, and complete any outstanding repairs within 3 months. The Council also agreed to offer Mr C a financial redress payment.

Mr A complained that Cardiff Council “The Council” had taken an unreasonable amount of time to issue him a Stage 2 report to a complaint he had escalated. The Ombudsman found that the Stage 2 report was completed 8 months before it was issued to Mr A and that no apology or update had been given to Mr A for the delay in issuing the report and the distress this caused him. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation on the basis that within 1 month of issuing the decision letter the Council would: Write to Mr A and acknowledge that there were unnecessary delays in providing him with the stage 2 report and provide a fulsome apology and acknowledgement of the distress the delays caused.

Mrs A complained that she had been experiencing problems with the assisted waste collection service provided by the Council. She said that despite making complaints to the Council about this matter her collection was repeatedly missed. The Ombudsman found that Mrs A had contacted the Council on several occasions regarding missed collections, but that the issue had persisted. This was an inconvenience to Mrs A and a source of frustration. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without investigation. The Council agreed to introduce additional measures to ensure that waste collection from Mrs A’s home was not missed. It also agreed that after 4 months it would audit the efficacy of the assisted waste collection service provided to Mrs A and to report the outcome of that audit to the Ombudsman.

Miss F complained that Cardiff Council failed to address all the concerns she raised with it concerning the maintenance of the surrounding area to her home. That the area has become hazardous. The Ombudsman found that the Council’s complaint response was not complete. This caused additional frustration and uncertainty for Miss F. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to issue a more detailed response to Miss F, within 4 weeks.

Mr A complained that Cardiff Council had failed to complete repairs in his flat. The Ombudsman considered that there had been avoidable delays in repairing Mr A’s cooker and decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to provide within 7 days, an update and explain the situation including an apology for the delay and providing a clear commitment to keep Mr A updated on the progress of the cooker repairs.

Miss X complained that Cardiff Council failed to provide the stage 2 complaint response after she escalated her complaint. The Ombudsman found that the Council had overlooked the request for a stage 2 investigation. The Ombudsman said this caused uncertainty and frustration for Miss X. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to, within 8 weeks, issue the stage 2 complaint response that will include an apology and explanation for the delays. It will also include a financial redress offer of £150. The Council also agreed to provide monthly updates if it is not in a position to issue its response within this timeframe and include and estimated date of completion.

Ms X complained that Cardiff Council refused to escalate her complaint in relation to the care services provided to her mother to stage 2 of its procedure. The Ombudsman found that the Council were unable to progress the complaint due to the lack of consent from Ms X’s mother. The Council failed to recognise the vulnerabilities of Ms X’s mother to engage meaningfully in its complaints procedure. The Ombudsman said this caused frustration to Ms X. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to, within 1 week, acknowledge Ms X as a representative to act on behalf of her mother and progress Ms X’s complaint to stage 2 in line with its complaints procedure.