PSOW Individual Decisions

The Ombudsman received a complaint that a Member (“the Member”) of Cyngor Gwynedd (“the County Council”) breached the Code of Conduct. It was alleged that the Member had received a Conditional Caution for “Fraud by abuse of position” by attempting to defraud his employer, through the misappropriation of funds. It was considered that the Member’s conditional caution and misconduct could reasonably be regarded as having brought his office as member and his County Council into disrepute and was therefore suggestive of a breach of paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Code of Conduct. Our finding, under section 69 of the Local Government Act 2000, was that our report on our investigation be referred to the President of the Adjudication Panel for Wales, for adjudication by a tribunal. The Tribunal found that the Former Member had failed to comply with the Code of Conduct.  Its sanction was to disqualify the Former Member from being a member of any Relevant Authority, as set out in the Local Government Act 2000, for a period of 3 years. The Case Tribunal’s decision is available here . This decision is subject to appeal.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that a Member (“the Member”) of Cyngor Gwynedd (“the County Council”) breached the Code of Conduct. It was alleged that the Member had received a Conditional Caution for “Fraud by abuse of position” by attempting to defraud his employer, through the misappropriation of funds. It was considered that the Member’s conditional caution and misconduct could reasonably be regarded as having brought his office as member and his County Council into disrepute and was therefore suggestive of a breach of paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Code of Conduct. Our finding, under section 69 of the Local Government Act 2000, was that our report on our investigation be referred to the President of the Adjudication Panel for Wales, for adjudication by a tribunal. The Tribunal found that the Former Member had failed to comply with the Code of Conduct.  Its sanction was to disqualify the Former Member from being a member of any Relevant Authority, as set out in the Local Government Act 2000, for a period of 3 years. The Case Tribunal’s decision is available here .

Ms A complained about council tax billing by Cyngor Gwynedd of a second property that she owned. When the Ombudsman made enquiries with the Council, she was advised that the Council were developing a policy to allow taxpayers to submit applications for their council tax to be reduced or written off. This policy has since been approved. The Ombudsman considered that Ms A’s circumstances should be considered in line with this policy. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement that it would write to Ms A within 3 weeks to confirm it would do the following: pause the pursuance of council tax arrears until the matter could be considered under the policy, consider the case on its merits having regard to the circumstances in line with its policy, and inform Ms A of its decision.

Mrs X complained that Cyngor Gwynedd failed to address all the concerns raised in the complaint she submitted regarding a Social Worker. The Ombudsman found that, while the Council had responded to Mrs X’s complaint, it did not address the main concerns raised and the Ombudsman said this caused uncertainty and frustration for Mrs X. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to, within 6 weeks, offer an apology and explanation for not addressing the concerns and to provide a complaint response with more detail and which addresses the complaint raised by Mrs X.

Mr A complained that Cyngor Gwynedd (“the Council”) had unfairly charged a premium council tax on an empty property that he was selling. He said that the sale of the house was delayed due to administrative errors made by the Council during property searches. The Ombudsman noted that the Council had responded toMr A’s complaint, providing a timeline of the council tax classifications placed on the property. However the Ombudsman was concerned that the Council’s complaint response did not address the concern that delays with the sale of the property were as a result of its administrative errors. The Ombudsman was therefore concerned that the Council’s decision to award a premium council tax rate on the property was made without investigating whether it was at fault for the delays. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to, within 3 weeks, apologise to Mr A, to investigate the delays to the property searches, decide upon whether the investigation outcome should result in a reassessment of the council tax award, and to provide an updated complaint response.

Mrs A said that she and her partner were homeless in2022. In March 2023 they moved into a hotel and most of their belongings were put into storage, which the Council had arranged. In May 2024, Mrs A and her partner managed to secure a property, which they moved into. At that time, she asked for their belongings to be returned. Mrs A contacted the Council numerous times about this matter, but their possessions were not returned. Mrs A wanted her belongings to be found but recognised, at this point, that they were probably not recoverable. She said she wanted the Council to be held accountable and for it to offer compensation, not only for the lost property, but for the distress caused and for the time and trouble in attempting to resolve the matter for over a year. The Ombudsman found that there were delays on the part of the Council in resolving the matter, which had caused a detriment to Mrs A. The Ombudsman was of the view that the Council’s handling of the matter amounted to maladministration which had caused her to suffer an injustice. The Council informed the Ombudsman that the matter of compensation for the loss of the items had recently been passed to its external insurer to consider. Instead of investigating this complaint, the Ombudsman obtained the Council’s agreement to, within 1 month, make a time and trouble payment of £250 to Mrs A.

Mr K complained that Cyngor Gwynedd failed to formally investigate multiple complaints he has raised concerning failed waste collections. The Ombudsman found that the Council failed to appropriately deal with the complaints raised by Mr K. This caused additional frustration and uncertainty for Mr K. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to log a formal complaint at Stage 2, to write to Mr K within 1 week, to apologise and to issue its complaint response within 4 weeks. It also agreed to offer a £150 financial redress payment.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that a Member (“the Member”) of Cyngor Gwynedd (“the Council”) had breached the Code of Conduct (“the Code”) when making comments in relation to the Relationships and Sexuality Education (RSE) curriculum.  It was alleged that comments were directed to cause shock and outrage, rather than to honestly inform the public, that they failed to show respect and consideration and that the Member failed to respect the Monitoring Officer’s guidance not to breach the Code of Conduct. An investigation considered whether the Member’s conduct was capable of bringing the Council or the role of member into disrepute as to be suggestive of a breach of the Code. Information was obtained from the Council, including relevant minutes and correspondence.  Witness evidence was obtained and the Member was interviewed. Having considered the evidence gathered and explanations provided by the Member for her actions, the Ombudsman determined, on balance, that most of the Member’s comments did not go beyond the limits afforded to her by her right to freedom of expression.  However, had it not been for the timely interventions and clear advice by the Chair and Monitoring Officer, the outcome may have been different.  The Member did make one comment which was not considered acceptable, especially as the Member acknowledged she could not refer to any documentation that would qualify this comment However, taking into account the Member’s reflections on the matter and wider circumstances including the public interest, the Ombudsman determined that no further action was necessary.  The Member was urged to take more care in the future, and to complete further training on the Code, particularly surrounding how her Article 10 right to freedom of expression must be balanced against the need to ensure that the rights and reputations of others are protected, in compliance with the Code of Conduct. Under Section 69(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 2000, the Ombudsman dete

Mr A complained about the information provided to him by Cyngor Gwynedd (‘the Council’) regarding how to raise concerns about noise issues from a neighbouring property. He also complained about how his complaint about the service was managed. The investigation found that the Council had provided information to Mr A about his complaint about noise from a neighbouring property. However, it had not clarified the requirements for evidence considered to be statutory nuisance or how Mr A could submit new evidence if it seemed to meet the criteria. In addition, the Ombudsman found that Mr A had been misinformed about the Council’s complaints process, which led to him prematurely contacting the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to provide Mr A with information about the criteria for statutory nuisance and his options for how to submit relevant evidence to the Council to consider a new case. In addition, the Council agreed to review the complaints information provided to Mr A, provide an apology for the miscommunication regarding its process, and take action to avoid recurrence. The Council also agreed to consider financial redress for the time and trouble Mr A had taken to raise his complaint. The Council agreed to complete these actions within 4 weeks.

Mr A complained about the delays in the process for completing an Individual Development Plan (“IDP”) for his daughter B. B was educated in an independent school because of her additional learning needs. Cyngor Gwynedd (“the Council”) had been funding her placement since an education tribunal decision in December 2024. Mr A complained that the delays in completing the IDP meant that he, rather than the Council, had been responsible for funding the placement for longer than he should have been. The Additional Learning Needs Code sets out the timescale for completion of an IDP under the Additional Learning Needs and Education Tribunal (Wales) Act 2018. The Council acknowledged that there had been delays in the process in B’s case and had reviewed the reasons for these delays. Some were outside the Council’s control, but it accepted that the overall time taken to complete the IDP was outside that specified in the Code. In settlement of the complaint, the Council agreed, within 6 weeks, to: • Provide a formal written apology to Mr A for the delays in this case. • Reimburse the equivalent of 8 weeks school placement fees paid by Mr A.

Ms T complained that Cyngor Gwynedd had failed to address her concerns in the complaints response and failed to clarify why the quote for the work to the hedges had increased considerably. The Ombudsman found that the Council had failed to address the concerns raised and clarify the increased cost. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to apologise to Ms T for not addressing her concerns in the complaints response, apologise for the lack of clarification regarding the traffic management costs and explain why this happened within 4 weeks. The Council also agreed to provide the complainant, within 4 weeks, a full complaints response that addresses all her concerns, inform the complainant that the department is willing to revise the costs to the original quote of £1680.00+VAT and offer the complainant a financial redress payment of £150 in recognition for the time and trouble of complaining to the Ombudsman.

Mr B complained that following a change in his circumstances, despite telephoning the Council at the end of September/beginning of October 2022 to make a payment arrangement he had not received a Council Tax (CT) bill for his previous address. He left the property in June 2022. He had been contacted by the bailiffs in 2024 in relation to outstanding council tax. The Council provided assurances to the Ombudsman that it would consider an affordable payment proposal from Mr B. It also referred to ways that Mr B’s CT debt and court costs might be reduced. The Ombudsman as part of an early resolution settlement arranged for the Council to send Mr B relevant CT invoices, including one that had been sent prior to Mr B leaving his property as well as other advocacy information. It also agreed to consider whether there were lessons that could be learnt from Mr B’s case around promoting earlier intervention, given the Welsh Government’s Council Tax Protocol.

Miss B complained that Cyngor Gwynedd failed to properly consider her application for an extension to her alcohol licence and had not fully responded to her complaint. The Ombudsman found that the Council had overlooked one section of Miss B’s complaint and this therefore, had not been responded to. She said this caused inconvenience and frustration for Miss B. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to apologise to Miss B and provide her with an additional complaint response within 20 working days.

Ms H complained that Cyngor Gwynedd failed to respond to the complaint she submitted in August 2023. The Ombudsman found there had been a significant delay in processing the investigation. She said this caused additional frustration for Ms H. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to conclude its investigation and issue its complaint response within 3 weeks.

Mr Q complained that Cyngor Gwynedd had failed to collect his refuse and recycling on numerous occasions. The Ombudsman found that the Council had not completed its complaint process. She felt this caused additional frustration to Mr Q. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. She sought and gained the Council’s agreement to escalate the complaint and issue a Stage 2 response within two weeks.

Ms A’s son was born prematurely with health issues, her relationship broke down and the jointly owned house had to be sold. On 31 May 2019 Ms A submitted a housing application with supporting financial documents to Gwynedd Council’s Housing Options Team. Ms A explained that her house was marketed for sale and a similar property sold within 4 weeks. She said that alternative housing would prevent her being homeless and forwarded the Health Visitor and GP’s medical evidence about her mental health and her son’s medical condition. On 2 August Ms A was assessed by the Council’s Homeless Unit and it was decided that a duty was owed to prevent homelessness. Ms A called the Council several times about a new housing development. She became aware that the Housing Options Team had not passed her son’s medical evidence to the Homeless Unit, which she forwarded on 1 October. On 1 October the Council issued a letter under s68 Housing Act 2014, a duty to secure interim accommodation. The Ombudsman found that the Council failed to properly consider and assess Ms A’s housing application in line with relevant law and guidance. Had this happened and had the medical information she had supplied been sent to the Council’s Homeless Unit in a timely manner, it was possible she may have been issued with the notification of duty under s68 sooner. In turn, had the medical information been forwarded sooner this could have led to Ms A being placed in higher housing band earlier. The Ombudsman found that the Council’s complaint response had failed to identify the failings and so had not been appropriate. These aspects of the complaints were upheld. The Ombudsman found that the Council had appropriately, and in a timely way, provided Ms A with financial help to meet the deposit and a month’s rent in advance to secure a private rented home. This aspect of the complaint was not upheld. The Council agreed to implement the Ombudsman’s recommendations to, within 1 month, apologise to Ms A for the id

Ms A complained about the Council’s pursuit of a Council Tax bill relating to an estate which she was acting as executor for. She complained that the Council had failed to deal with her complaint appropriately. The Ombudsman found that the Council had failed to provide Ms A with a response and some of the communication between Ms A and the Council was inappropriate in tone or content. This resulted in Ms A feeling that her complaint was not dealt with appropriately, which she said impacted her financially and affected her mental health. The Ombudsman contacted the Council and in resolution of Ms A’s complaint it agreed that within 20 working days it would appoint a senior manager independent from the Council Tax department to investigate the complaint and that its response would set out what Ms A’s liabilities were, what the Council was pursuing and if errors were identified to consider whether financial reimbursement or redress was merited. The Ombudsman considered this to be an appropriate resolution and did not investigate.

Mrs K complained that Cyngor Gwynedd had failed to pay the statutory Heating/Cost of Living Allowance announced by the Welsh Government to her sister’s estate. Mrs K also complained that the Council issued a summons to her late sister’s estate for unpaid Council Tax, despite a block on recovery pending resolution of a Probate, and the inability of the Council to properly consider outstanding issues and communicate with her, which included dealings with 2 senior officers. The Ombudsman was concerned that Mrs K had not received a further response to her complaint by the Head of Service and that she had been inconvenienced by the Council’s actions. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to provide Mrs K with an apology for the delay in providing a further response to her complaint, an explanation for the delay, and provide Mrs K with a further complaint response from the Head of service, within 4 weeks.

Mr L complained that Cyngor Gwynedd failed to fully respond to his concerns. Mr L further complained that the Council had not provided him with details of its investigation and failed to issue him with the investigation minutes he had requested. The Ombudsman found that although the Council had responded to Mr L’s complaint, it did not address all concerns raised and did not explain its investigation clearly. She also found that Mr L’s request for the investigation minutes had not been acted on and said that this caused frustration for Mr L. As an alternative to an investigation, the Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to provide Mr L with an apology for not acting on his request within a timely manner, issue him with the investigation minutes, and provide a further complaint response within 4 weeks.

Mr L complained that Cyngor Gwynedd caused him unnecessary stress as a result of his Council Tax increase. He further complained that despite raising concerns with the Council, he had not received a formal response. The Ombudsman decided that the Council had not acted in line with its statutory complaint procedure and there had been a significant delay in issuing Mr L with a formal response. She said this caused further frustration to Mr L. As an alternative to an investigation, the Council agreed that it would provide Mr L with an apology and formal response within 30 working days.

Mrs A complained about the Council’s failure to provide IT support equipment to his disabled daughter in a timely manner. The need for the relevant equipment was recognized in March 2022. The equipment was received in January 2023. While considering her complaint, the Ombudsman was concerned about the delay in provision of IT equipment to support her daughter’s education. She was also concerned about the Council’s handling of her complaint. The Council agreed to undertake the following to settle her complaint, in lieu of a full investigation: to formally acknowledge and apologise to Mrs A, within 1 month, for the unacceptable delay and adverse effect caused; to offer Mrs A a payment of £500, within 1 month, to reflect the unacceptable delays in the provision of the IT equipment and for the time and trouble she spent; to provide evidence and explanation to the Ombudsman, within 2 months, of improvements to the ordering of IT equipment; to ensure that no other disabled child suffers significant delays as the Council orders IT assistive equipment (and if there are those who suffer such delays, to resolve those delays), within 2 months, and, finally, to consider providing training to officers from the relevant department regarding handling complaints (in accordance with the Council’s complaints process), within 2 months.