PSOW Individual Decisions

We investigated Mrs A’s complaint about whether the Council adhered to the appropriate guidelines, regulations and associated code of practice in relation to 2 carers assessments and the decision made by the Council to decline overnight respite as recommended in both assessments. The investigation found that the carers’ assessment lacked the key elements as required under the relevant code. Whilst the second assessment identified the emotional and physical impact on Mrs A due to her caring role, and that she had not been receiving adequate breaks, the assessment did not sufficiently integrate detailed analysis of her son, B’s, behavioural needs, sleep patterns, and level of dependency into a clear, outcome-focused rationale for overnight respite provision. This likely impacted on the decision to decline overnight respite. These shortcomings in the assessment process amounted to service failure which caused Mrs A and injustice. This complaint was upheld. Whilst the panel decision to decline overnight respite based on the information contained in the assessment was likely to have been appropriate, some of the actions it proposed could have been facilitated sooner. This was a shortcoming which likely delayed the decision-making process. The complaint was upheld to this limited extent.

Mrs B complained that Carmarthenshire County Council failed to adequately address her complaint about damp and large cracks in her walls. Mrs B also complained about the lack of communication from the Council. The Ombudsman found that the Council had failed to properly consider Mrs B’s complaint and its communication with Mrs B had fallen short of expected standards. She said that this caused frustration and uncertainty to Mrs B. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. It was noted that the Council had already provided an apology to Mrs B regarding the poor communication. As such, the Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to write to Mrs B with an apology for the failure to properly consider her complaint, and to undertake a through investigation of all of Mrs B’s concerns and issue a properly considered Stage 2 complaint response within 4 weeks.

Mr H complained about the quality of his daughter’s swimming lessons and a failure by Carmarthenshire County Council to respond to the complaint he made to it in October 2025. The Ombudsman found that the Council had acknowledged Mr H’s complaint in October 2025 and had failed to respond, which she said caused frustration to Mr H. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without a formal investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to apologise to Mr H for failing to respond to his complaint, to explain to him why no response was issued, and to issue a Stage 2 complaint response within 4 weeks.

Mr A complained that Carmarthenshire County Council had failed to fully respond to his Social Services complaints. The Ombudsman found that the Council had not fully addressed the complaint. The Ombudsman considered that this left Mr A with unanswered questions and decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to issue a response to Mr A’s complaint, specifying what his complaint to the Council is and how it is or has been dealt with in court proceedings, within 6 weeks.

Mr A complained that Carmarthenshire County Council failed to respond to the complaint he made to it in April 2025. The Ombudsman found that the Council had failed to log Mr A’s complaint, causing frustration to him. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without a formal investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to apologise to Mr A for failing to log his complaint, to explain the reasons for this failure, and to issue a Stage 2 complaint response to him within 4 weeks.

Mr X complained that Carmarthenshire County Council failed to take action against his neighbour who had damaged and removed the boundary hedging. The Ombudsman found that the Council had failed to provide Mr X with a complaint response. She said this caused uncertainty and frustration for Mr X. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to, within 3 weeks, issue its complaint response and offer Mr X £100 redress for the delay in responding to his complaint and for his time and trouble in making a complaint to the Ombudsman.

An advocate, Mr X, complained that his client, Miss Y, had not received a response from Carmarthenshire County Council to the Social Services complaint made to it in February 2025. The Ombudsman found that there had been a delay in issuing a Stage 2 complaint response to Miss Y, causing frustration to her. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without a formal investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to apologise and explain the reasons for the delay and to issue the Stage 2 Social Services complaints response within 6 weeks.

Miss X complained that Carmarthenshire County Council failed to respond to the complaint she submitted in February 2025 regarding the housing allocation and damp at the property. The Ombudsman found that the Council had not considered the complaint under its formal complaints procedure. 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 3 weeks, offer an apology to Miss X for the delay in responding and formally address the points raised in her complaint. The complaint response will also confirm that the repairs reported have been completed and advise that the Council will review her housing application in line with its procedure and confirm the complaints process to follow before escalating the complaint further with our office.

Ms A complained about failings in the support she and her daughter had received from the Children’s Services department at Carmarthenshire County Council (‘the Council’). The Ombudsman decided that the Council had carried out a Stage 2 Independent Investigation into Ms A’s complaint, which had largely upheld the issues she had raised. The Council had also taken actions to complete the recommendations made by the Independent Investigator. However, due to the issues upheld it was decided that a payment of redress was appropriate. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and obtained the Council’s agreement that in 1 month it would make a redress payment in the sum of £2,500 in recognition of the failings upheld in the Stage 2 investigation.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that a Member (“the Member”) of Carmarthenshire County Council (“the Council”) had breached the Code of Conduct (“the Code”) by publicly supporting behaviour of another Member (Councillor A) who was alleged to have breached the Code at a public election event and by thereafter failing to deal with the conduct of that Member as a Group Leader. An investigation considered whether the Member’s conduct was capable of bringing the Council or the role of member into disrepute to be suggestive of a breach of the Code. Evidence was obtained from the Council, a witness to the behaviour of Councillor A, the Member and publicly available media articles. Having considered the evidence gathered and explanations provided by the Member for his actions, the Ombudsman was not persuaded that there was evidence to suggest that his actions had brought the Council or the role of Member into disrepute. Under Section 69(4)(a) of the Local Government Act 2000, the Ombudsman found no evidence of any failure to comply with the Code.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that a Member (“the Member”) of Carmarthenshire Council (“the Council”) had breached the Code of Conduct (“the Code”) during a public election event when he made what was reported as a fascist salute directed toward one of the candidates.  The matter was reported in the media and in online articles in the days that followed. An investigation considered whether the Member’s conduct was capable of bringing the Council or the role of member into disrepute to be suggestive of a breach of the Code. Evidence was obtained from the Council, witnesses at the event, the Member and the publicly available media articles. Having considered the evidence gathered and explanations provided by the Member for his actions, the Ombudsman determined, on balance, that the Member’s actions were serious in nature and had the ability to negatively impact the reputation of the Council and the role of member and were likely to have brought both his office and his authority into disrepute. However, taking into account the Member’s actions immediately after the event and wider circumstances including the public interest, the Ombudsman determined that no further action was necessary. Under Section 69(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 2000, the Ombudsman determined that no action needs to be taken in respect of the matters investigated.

Miss A complained about how Carmarthenshire County Council (“the Council”) dealt with safeguarding concerns she reported regarding her daughter. Miss A said that the Council failed to share a report with her from May 2024. The Independent Investigation taken into her concerns upheld this aspect of her complaint. The Ombudsman recognised that the Council had still not shared this report with her, despite the complaint being upheld. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to within 4 weeks offer Miss A an apology and send her a copy of the report.

Ms A complained about water ingress to her property, which is rented from Carmarthenshire County Council (“the Council”). She said that despite complaining to the Council the issue had not been resolved and the Council had not fully addressed her complaint. The Ombudsman decided that whilst the Council had issued a Stage 2 complaint response, this had not fully addressed the issues Ms A had raised or addressed the outcomes she was seeking. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement that within 2 weeks it would send Ms A a further response which should address the outstanding issues.

Mrs B complained that the Council had failed to install sound insulation to her home. She also complained that the Council had failed to respond appropriately to reports of damp and mould in her home. The Ombudsman found that In respect of sound proofing Mrs B had been provided with a complaint response regarding this issue more than 12 months previously. As there did not appear to be any exceptional circumstances that prevented Mrs B making a complaint to the Ombudsman within 12 months this issue was considered out of time for investigation. The Ombudsman also found that whilst the Council had carried out some work to address damp and mould in Mrs B’s home some issues remained unaddressed. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to share an inspection report relating to the chimney at Mrs B’s home with both Mrs B and this office, arrange with Mrs B to carry out and inspection of her home, and undertake any necessary work arising from this inspection. It also agreed that within one month of any works being completed it would reinspect Mrs B’s home and arrange an independent damp and mould survey if the works had not been effective.

Mr A complained that Carmarthenshire County Council had not appropriately consulted with local residents prior to the installation of speed curbs in the area and had not provided a full response to his complaint. The Ombudsman’s assessment found that, although the Council had provided a response to Mr A’s complaint, it did not address the specific issues he raised or provide an apology for the delay issuing this. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to conduct an investigation into the concerns raised by Mr A, specifically relating to the installation of speed curbs in his area. It also agreed to provide a comprehensive response, in line with the Council’s Corporate Complaint process, outlining the findings of the investigation. The response will include detail of the consultation that took place with local residents prior to the installation of speed curbs. In addition, for the response to include an apology for the delay and oversight in not providing Mr A with a comprehensive response to his specific concerns. The Council agreed to complete the investigation and provide the response to Mr A within 3 weeks.

Mr C complained about the closure of his mental health day centre in 2020 including the lack of consultation. Mr C also raised concerns about the alternative day centre provision provided and why it was not appropriate for his needs. Mr C was dissatisfied with the Stage 1 and Stage 2 complaint responses that he had received. Mr C also complained about disputed direct payments he had made in relation to a personal assistant. The Ombudsman did not consider that an investigation into Mr C’s main complaints would achieve much more as the complaint responses appeared reasonable. The Council had not previously had an opportunity to address the specific direct payment issues that Mr C raised in its complaint responses. The Council as part of an early resolution/settlement agreed to respond to Mr C’s concerns in this area. It also agreed to provide Mr C with an updated invoice, apologise for invoicing errors and review whether there were lessons to be learnt and to inform/appropriately facilitate a social care/mental heath needs reassessment for Mr C.

Miss A complained that Carmarthenshire County Council had not carried out repairs works to her home, that had previously been agreed. The Ombudsman found that there has been some delay by the Council in carrying out the agreed repair works. Furthermore, the Council had changed its position in relation to fencing the garden. Miss A had been inconvenienced by the Council’s failure to carry out agreed works in a timely manner. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to, within 4 weeks, provide Miss A with an apology for the delay in undertaking the agreed repair works, an explanation as to why the Council is no longer willing to undertake the fencing works previously agreed, and a schedule of when the outstanding works will be completed.

Mr A complained that Carmarthenshire County Council declined to investigate his complaint related to safeguarding concerns. The Ombudsman decided that the Council had appropriately referred the issues to the Safeguarding Team, but it had not responded to Mr A’s complaint about the lack of appropriate action taken in response to his concerns, and delays that had occurred, over the past year. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to apologise to Mr A, acknowledge his complaint, offer him the opportunity to discuss his concerns and provide a response in line with the Council’s Corporate Complaints Policy, within 20 working days.

Mr X complained Carmarthenshire County Council allowed his neighbours to build garages and drives on Council land with no charge when he had to pay 14 years ago for the same stretch of land. The Ombudsman concluded that the Council had failed to respond to Mr X’s complaint made in November 2023 in line with its complaint process. The Ombudsman said this had caused uncertainty, frustration, and inconvenience to Mr X, and decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to apologise for the delay and inconvenience caused, issue its complaint response within a week, and offer a time and trouble payment of £75.

Mr A complained about the actions/inaction of the Environmental Health Department, the investigation undertaken in respect of his noise complaint and the conclusions of the Stage 2 investigation into these complaints. The Stage 2 investigation took 13 months to undertake, which was inappropriate. The Environmental Health Department drew up a schedule of work with deadlines for the letting agency to complete however completion was protracted. The Councils Housing Enforcement Procedure does not state at what juncture letting agencies/landlords should be chased and when enforcement action should be considered and/or commenced. The Council agreed to the following action: a) Within 1 month the Council shall provide Mr A with a meaningful apology for the delay in undertaking a Stage 2 investigation and providing a complaint response. b) Within 1 month the Council shall pay Mr A the sum of £250 in recognition of the failure identified in complaint handling. Within 3 months the Council shall revise Section 8 of its Housing Enforcement Procedure to ensure that if there has been non-compliance with a schedule of work by the agreed completion date, active consideration will be given to enforcement action and the rational for the decision to commence or not to commence formal action will be recorded.

Mrs Z had complained about the care and support provided to her late brother, Mr X, by Neath Port Talbot Council (“the First Council”) and Carmarthenshire County Council (“the Second Council”). Mrs Z complained to the Ombudsman that the independent Stage 2 investigation arranged by the Second Council, on behalf of the First and Second Councils, did not fully address her concerns. Specifically, she complained that it did not sufficiently consider her complaint that the First and Second Councils did not rigorously investigate reports that Mr X was being isolated by his partner from family, community and services. She also complained that the outcome of a safeguarding strategy meeting held following the death of Mr X, chaired by the Second Council, was flawed as it should have considered witness statements prepared by hospital staff. The Ombudsman found that both the First and Second Councils took appropriate action in regard to concerns that Mr X was being isolated by his partner from family, community and services. The investigation also found that appropriate action was taken by the Second Council in its role in chairing the safeguarding strategy meeting. Appropriate information was requested and considered. These complaints were not upheld.

Mrs Z had complained about the care and support provided to her late brother, Mr X, by Neath Port Talbot Council (“the First Council”) and Carmarthenshire County Council (“the Second Council”). Mrs Z complained to the Ombudsman that the independent Stage 2 investigation arranged by the Second Council, on behalf of the First and Second Councils, did not fully address her concerns. Specifically, she complained that it did not sufficiently consider her complaint that the First and Second Councils did not rigorously investigate reports that Mr X was being isolated by his partner from family, community and services. She also complained that the outcome of a safeguarding strategy meeting held following the death of Mr X, chaired by the Second Council, was flawed as it should have considered witness statements prepared by hospital staff. The Ombudsman found that both the First and Second Councils took appropriate action in regard to concerns that Mr X was being isolated by his partner from family, community and services. The investigation also found that appropriate action was taken by the Second Council in its role in chairing the safeguarding strategy meeting. Appropriate information was requested and considered. These complaints were not upheld.

Mr F complained about the Council’s handling of his complaint relating to the failure of its letting agency (“the Agency”) to obtain appropriate safety documentation for a property it was managing on his behalf (“the property”). Mr F complained that these failings invalidated his insurance and left him at legal risk, and that he had expended considerable time and effort to ensure that the Council acknowledged and addressed his concerns. He said that the Council had not fully implemented the recommendations of its Stage 2 complaints response. Having reviewed the available evidence, the Ombudsman was concerned that the Council had not acknowledged the time and trouble Mr F had been put to in order to achieve a resolution to his complaint. It was also evident that the Council had not implemented all the recommendations in its Stage 2 complaints response. The Council agreed to the following actions in order to resolve the complaint: Within 1 month a) to provide evidence that it has completed recommendations 1 and 2 from its Stage 2 complaint response (to write a letter of apology and acknowledge that Mr F was not responsible for the breaches of his legal obligations as a tenant) b) to make a time and trouble payment of £250 to Mr F and to acknowledge the inconvenience caused to him by the delay in resolving his concerns. Within 2 months c) to provide evidence that it has completed recommendations 4 and 5 from its Stage 2 complaint response (to review the Agency’s management arrangements and review the future use of the electrical contractor concerned).

Mr T complained that Carmarthenshire County Council had not responded to his complaint and were causing deliberate delays in dealing with a planning issue. The Ombudsman found that the Council had failed to provide Mr T with a complaint response within a reasonable timeframe. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to apologise to Mr T for the delay and provide an explanation as to why this happened. The Council also agreed to provide the final complaint response within one week and offer Mr T £50 financial redress for the time and trouble taken to approach the Ombudsman.

Mr R complained about Carmarthenshire County Council’s handling of a planning application for a neighboring property and said he had not received a response to his complaint. The Ombudsman found that Mr R had requested his complaint be escalated to stage 2of the complaints process in October and November 2023, but the Council had not progressed the complaint. The Ombudsman said this caused frustration to Mr R and decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to apologise to Mr R for failing to progress the complaint and to explain the reasons for the failure. The Council also agreed to offer Mr R a redress payment of £50 in recognition of the delay and to issue its complaint response within 4 weeks.