PSOW Individual Decisions

Mrs X complained that Conwy County Borough Council failed to provide her son with appropriate educational provision. She said that this resulted in significant gaps in his education, emotional wellbeing, and social development. The Ombudsman noted that the Council had provided a response to Mrs X’s complaint, however she was concerned that it did not address all of Mrs X’s concerns. As a result, she decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and obtained the Council’s agreement to contact Mrs X within 3 weeks to arrange a meeting to discuss all aspects of her complaint.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that a Member (“the Member”) of Conwy County Borough Council (“the Council”) had breached the Code of Conduct (“the Code”).  It was alleged that the Member failed to observe the Code in email correspondence to Council Officers. An investigation considered whether the Member’s conduct was suggestive of a breach of paragraph 4(b) of the Code.  Information was obtained from the Council.  Witnesses, including the complainant, were interviewed. In relation to the emails sent by the Member, the Ombudsman’s investigation found that the Member’s comments, about Officers within the Council’s Democratic Services were disrespectful and not proportionate in the circumstances.  It found that the Member’s comments failed to show respect and consideration.  However, the investigation also found that the Member’s comments were based on what he believed to be evidence that a moderation process, in relation to emails, had not been implemented in a neutral way, albeit this was a mistaken belief. Therefore, while the Member’s comments could be considered as personally insulting, the Member mistakenly believed that Council Officers had acted in a way that was not politically neutral.  In considering the full context of the exchange and the politically charged nature of events, the Ombudsman found that any sanction for a breach of the Code would likely amount to a disproportionate interference with the Member’s right to freedom of expression.  In view of this, the Ombudsman was not persuaded, on balance that further action would be proportionate in the public interest or would contribute to the rebuilding of future working relationships. 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.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that a Member (“the Member”) of Conwy County Borough Council (“the Council”) had breached the Code of Conduct when they published anti-semitic information on social media and demonstrated support for a proscribed terrorist organisation. The Ombudsman found that the substance of the allegation was criminal in nature.  It was decided that the investigation should be discontinued, pending any referral that may be made to the Police.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that a Member (“the Member”) of Conwy County Borough Council (“the Council”) had breached the Code of Conduct when they published anti-semitic information on social media and demonstrated support for a proscribed terrorist organisation. The Ombudsman found that the substance of the allegation was criminal in nature.  It was decided that the investigation should be discontinued, pending any referral that may be made to the Police.

Ms A complained that Conwy County Borough Council had not properly considered her son’s disability and housing needs. She said that her son’s behaviour was seriously impacted by their current housing situation. Ms A was concerned that the Occupational Therapist had recommended unsuitable future housing because they had not met with her son to assess his needs. The Ombudsman decided that the Council’s process for deciding if Occupational Therapy assessments should be in-person or completed as a paper exercise, was unclear and could be unfair. The Council’s assessment of Ms A’s son’s needs had relied solely upon written information provided by other professionals and Ms A, but it had also disregarded some of the information provided that Ms A said was important. The Ombudsman said that relying solely on information provided by other professionals may not provide accurate information about the home environment and related needs. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement within one month to apologise to Ms A, arrange an Occupational Therapy assessment with Ms A and her son at home, to review the current system for deciding whether assessments should be in-person and consider the requirement of a producing written guidance.

Mr C complained about failings in the Council’s handling of his noise complaints against a neighbouring premises since 2020. Matters occurring before February 2020 were deemed to be out of time to raise a complaint with the Ombudsman’s office, but issues occurring since February 2023were considered to have been made within time. This included a complaint that the Council had failed to proceed with a proposed legal action relating to breaches of a noise abatement notice served on the premises in 2018 and had not taken appropriate action since the failing was identified. The assessment of this complaint established that the Council had already apologised for the stalled legal action and identified the cause being a failure to appropriately follow up progress of the case when an existing staff member left. As the noise complaint was an ongoing issue, it was also taking steps to progress action to address the noise nuisance going forward. However, it was not clear that the Council had addressed the cause of the failings by taking action to prevent a similar error occurring in the future, or considered any financial redress for the distress, time and trouble caused to Mr C. The Council agreed to offer a financial redress payment of £250 within 4 weeks. It also agreed, within 8 weeks, to set up an internal process/procedure relating to the handling and progressing of noise complaints, to incorporate relevant follow up actions within appropriate timeframes, when necessary. The Ombudsman considered this to represent an appropriate outcome and closed the case on this basis.

Ms N complained that Conwy County Borough Council failed to respond to a complaint she raised in December 2023. The Ombudsman found a significant delay in the Council issuing its response. She said this caused additional frustration, inconvenience and uncertainty for Ms N. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to issue its complaint response, within 2 weeks, to include an apology and offer of £100 for the delay.

Mr and Mrs X complained that Conwy County Borough Council had failed to provide them with a further response following the escalation of their complaint. The Ombudsman found that Mr and Mrs X had corresponded with the Council following its Stage 1 complaint response and the Council had agreed to provide Mr and Mrs X with a further response. However, it said that it did not believe that Mr and Mrs X would be happy with any further response and it should have escalated their complaint to stage 2. The Ombudsman said this caused delay and frustration to Mr and Mrs X and decided to settle the complaint without an Investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to issue its further response and should Mr and Mrs X be dissatisfied with the response it will escalate the complaint to a stage 2 within 2 weeks. The response will also offer an apology for the delay and lack of updates. The Council also agreed to offer £150 in recognition of the delay, lack of updates and for the time and trouble taken by Mr and Mrs X complaining to the Ombudsman.

Mrs A complained that Conwy County Borough Council had failed to provide her son with a space within their home that met his medical needs and which promoted dignity and respect. In this respect, Mrs A raised significant concerns that the Council had not undertaken a comprehensive Occupational Therapy assessment which took into account her son’s deteriorating health as well as the needs of the whole family. In considering Mrs A’s complaint, the Ombudsman was concerned that Mrs A had not yet received any form of formal response to the complaint that she originally submitted to the Council on 7 March 2023. To try to address Mrs A’s complaint, the Council had arranged for an external review to take place but this had still not been received by Mrs A by the time that she approached the Ombudsman’s office. The Ombudsman’s office contacted the Council and was later informed that the external review had since been received. The Council agreed to settle Mrs A’s complaint on the basis that, within 1 month, it shared the findings of the external review with her and confirmed what action it was going to take as a result of the report’s recommendations. The Council also agreed to apologise to Mrs A for the delay in providing a response to her complaint, and to offer her a payment of £250 in recognition of the time and trouble that she had been put to in pursuing the complaint.

Mr A and Mr B complained that Welsh Government had failed to use its powers to ensure that Conwy County Borough Council and Denbighshire County Council were taking action to meet the need for accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers as required by the Housing (Wales) Act 2014. Mr A and Mr B also complained that Welsh Government had failed to deal properly with a complaint they had made about this matter. Local authorities have a duty to meet the need for accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers. They are required to identify and assess the need in their area and submit a plan to Welsh Government for its approval. Welsh Government therefore has a critical leadership role in ensuring that local authorities carry out their duties for the provision of accommodation. The investigation found that Welsh Government had failed to carry out this role and that its failure to respond to Conwy &Denbighshire Councils had constrained the ability of Conwy and Denbighshire to meet the need for accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers. This has caused frustration and distress to both Mr A and Mr B, whose accommodation needs remain unmet. It is also likely that others in the community have been affected, or could be affected, by this failure. Mr A and Mr B’s complaint was not dealt with in accordance with Welsh Government policy. Their complaint was wrongly classified as one that could not be considered under the policy. The time taken to inform them that their complaint was not being considered was excessive. I recommended that the Welsh Government should apologise to Mr A and Mr B for the failings identified in this report and offer them a payment of £1,000 each in recognition of the injustice caused to them because of these failings. I also recommended that Welsh Government should inform local authorities of the requirement to continue to take steps to meet need in approved Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessments whilst updated Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessments ar

The Ombudsman received a complaint that a Member (“the Member”) of Conwy County Borough Council (“the Council”) had breached the Code of Conduct (“the Code”) by participating and voting in a Council meeting, which he attended virtually, while appearing to be driving. The Ombudsman’s investigation considered whether the Member had breached the Code by bringing his office or authority into disrepute. Information was obtained from the Council, including minutes from the relevant Council meetings and videos of the incidents that led to the complaint.  Information was also obtained from the Member and from the Police. The video footage from the first Council meeting showed the Member to be driving a vehicle whilst participating in the meeting and the Member acknowledged that this was the case.  The Member felt it important that he attend all meetings.  Subsequent videos showed the car either to be stationary or that the Member was in the passenger seat. The Police said it had not received a complaint and it would not now be in the public interest to investigate the matter.  It is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether the Member’s actions would have amounted to criminal behaviour.  However, the Police decision does not mean the Member’s actions were considered acceptable. The Ombudsman found that the actions of the Member were suggestive of a breach of the Code.  The public rightly expect elected members to engage fully with council business and to attend a meeting whilst driving a vehicle demonstrated poor judgement and had the potential to bring the Council into disrepute. The Ombudsman considered that there was evidence of a single incident where the Member was driving and interacted with the meeting, and that it did not appear to be indicative of repeated behaviour.  That subsequent videos showed the Member to be in the passenger seat or in a stationary vehicle suggests the Member had not repeated the behaviour and has learned from this complaint. The Ombudsma

The Ombudsman received a complaint that a Member (“the Member”) of Conwy County Borough Council (“the Council”) had breached the Code of Conduct (“the Code”) by participating and voting in a Council meeting, which he attended virtually, while appearing to be driving. The Ombudsman’s investigation considered whether the Member had breached the Code by bringing his office or authority into disrepute. Information was obtained from the Council, including minutes from the relevant Council meetings and videos of the incidents that led to the complaint.  Information was also obtained from the Member and from the Police. The video footage from the first Council meeting showed the Member to be driving a vehicle whilst participating in the meeting and the Member acknowledged that this was the case.  The Member felt it important that he attend all meetings.  Subsequent videos showed the car either to be stationary or that the Member was in the passenger seat. The Police said it had not received a complaint and it would not now be in the public interest to investigate the matter.  It is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether the Member’s actions would have amounted to criminal behaviour.  However, the Police decision does not mean the Member’s actions were considered acceptable. The Ombudsman found that the actions of the Member were suggestive of a breach of the Code.  The public rightly expect elected members to engage fully with Council business and to attend a meeting whilst driving a vehicle demonstrated poor judgement and had the potential to bring the Council into disrepute. The Ombudsman considered that there was evidence of a single incident where the Member was driving and interacted with the meeting, and that it did not appear to be indicative of repeated behaviour.  That subsequent videos showed the Member to be in the passenger seat or in a stationary vehicle suggests the Member had not repeated the behaviour and has learned from this complaint. The Ombudsma

Mr A complained that the Council failed to keep him informed or respond to his communications when considering his homelessness application. He said that an unsuitable temporary accommodation offer was made. He was also concerned that his formal complaints had not been considered under the Council’s complaint policy. The Ombudsman was satisfied that there was evidence that Mr A had been kept reasonably informed, emails were responded to and a further offer of temporary accomodation was made. However, she was concerned that the service issues raised by Mr A had not been logged or responded to as formal complaints. She sought and obtained the Council’s agreement to consider Mr A’s complaints under its complaints policy, within one month. This action was accepted as an alternative to an investigation.

Ms X complained that despite raising concerns about a Council Officer whilst on vacation in September 2022, she had not yet received an acknowledgement or response. The Ombudsman concluded that the Council had wrongly determined that the complaint had been resolved and failed to follow its statutory complaints procedure. She said that this caused delays and frustration for Ms X. As an alternative to an investigation, the Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement that within 30 working days it would issue Ms X with an apology for the delays in responding, issue a formal written response, and also provide details to Ms X on its formal complaints procedure if she wishes to proceed further.

Mr X complained that 10 months following initial contact with the Council, it issued a notice under the Public Health Act 1936 (“the Act”) directly to him when it should have been issued directly to his tenant. Mr X was advised that he had no right of appeal. The Ombudsman found that the Council took a signicant of time to issue the notice leaving Mr X in a position where he did not know what action was available to him. She was also concerned that the complaint response was confusing and did not adequately set out the Council’s legislative right in relation to issuing a notice on the landlord under the Act. The Ombudsman contacted the Council and it agreed to undertake the following action by no later than 24 October 2022: – 1. Offer its apology for the significant delay in communicating with Mr X. 2. Offer Mr X a time & trouble payment of £100 for the delay and the confusion caused to him. 3. Allocate a Legal Officer to set out the legislative position to Mr X to remove any confusion.

Ms B complained that Conwy County Borough Council failed to appropriately respond and deal with the concerns she raised about her property in line with the its policies and procedures. The Ombudsman’s investigation found that the Council failed to appropriately update and inform Ms B about its complaint handling, complaint process or the options available to her. She found that the complaint handling failings amounted to maladministration which were an injustice to Ms B as she was not adequately informed by the Council and experienced delays in the handling of her complaint. Accordingly, this element of Ms B’s complaint was upheld. The Ombudsman’s investigation found that in response to the concerns Ms B raised about her property, the Council initially took appropriate informal action in line with its procures. However, Ms B’s complaint was subsequently closed by the Council whilst issues in her property remained. The Ombudsman found that there was a delay in the Council making enquiries and obtaining information about the cause of the issues which resulted in a delaying Ms B’s concerns being appropriately investigated and addressed, which was an injustice to her. Accordingly, the Ombudsman partly upheld this element of Ms B’s complaint. The Ombudsman recommended that the Council apologised and offered a payment of £250 to Ms B for the failings identified. She also recommended that the Council reminded its complaint handling staff and regulatory and enforcement department in the importance of updating complainants and the timely handling of concerns and making enquiries.

Mr X complained that the care home funded by the Council failed to adequately monitor and respond to his father’s, Mr Z’s, needs before they became critical. Mr X also complained that the family was not kept informed of Mr Z’s welfare and following a brief admission to hospital, the care home refused to allow Mr Z to return. The Ombudsman found that the Council was aware of both the complaint and that Mr X remained dissatisfied following the care home’s complaint response. The Ombudsman asked the Council to, within 30 working days: a) Provide a complaint response to Mr X under the provisions of the statutory Social Services complaints procedure.

Ms X complained about the time taken for the Council to put in place a new management agreement at a gypsy traveller site and to reimburse residents’ costs incurred for routine maintenance. Concerns were also raised about the delay in repositioning a sound barrier and the Council’s statement that officers would not deal directly with residents if allegations of racism were made. Although the evidence suggested that the Council had been acting to address the situation, the Ombudsman was concerned that these matters had been ongoing for some time. Certain issues were out of time for consideration and others had been resolved. The Council said that officers had found the persistent allegations of racism highly offensive but had not ended direct contact. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint. He sought and gained the Council’s agreement to provide a new draft management agreement to the residents and reimburse their outstanding costs by 31 January 2022.

Ms A complained that the independent investigation of her complaint at Stage 2 of the Council’s complaints procedure was too narrow and lacked sufficient detail. Ms A highlighted a number of inconsistencies and errors in the independent investigation report and said that some aspects of her complaint had not been addressed. The Ombudsman considered that although there had been appropriate and thorough consideration of the complaint, the Council could provide a more detailed response, addressing Ms A’s specific concerns. The Council agreed, to consider and review, in conjunction with Ms A, the matters she considered incorrectly recorded and not addressed in the Stage 2 Investigation Report and, if appropriate, arrange for an addendum to the report and/or a further complaint response, rectifying any discrepancies and addressing any outstanding issues, within 30 working days. The Ombudsman’s view was that the above action was reasonable to settle Ms A’s complaint.

The Ombudsman received a self-referral from a Member (“the Member”) of Conwy County Borough Council (“the Council”) that he had breached the Code of Conduct (“the Code”).  The self-referral related to a failure to update the Members’ Register of Interests. The Ombudsman determined that an investigation was appropriate and that paragraph 15 of the Code should be considered. The investigation found that the Member became a member of a political party and, subsequently, there was a period of around 7 months in which the Member did not update his Register of Interests to declare such a membership.  The Ombudsman’s guidance on the Code clearly sets out members must include in their Register of Interests any membership of a political party.  The Ombudsman considered, therefore, that the Member’s failure to update his Register of Interests was suggestive of a breach of the Code. In considering whether a referral to a Standards Committee or the Adjudication Panel for Wales was required in the public interest, the Ombudsman had regard to a number of public interest factors.  She took into account the Member’s conduct in self-referring to this office and in accepting and acknowledging the error he had made.  The Member has offered apologies for his actions and resigned from the Cabinet in recognition of his poor conduct.  The Member co-operated fully with the investigation.  There was no evidence that the Member’s undeclared political party membership had an impact on the decisions taken by the Cabinet during the time it was undeclared. In these circumstances, on balance, it was not considered to be in the public interest for any referral to be made to the Standards Committee in respect of the failing identified.  However, the Ombudsman does not condone the Member’s conduct and considered that the proportionate action is for the Member to undertake training on the Code, particularly in relation to personal and prejudicial interests and his obligation to ensure his interests a