PSOW Individual Decisions

The Ombudsman received a complaint that a Member (“the Member”) of Flintshire County Council (“the Council”) had breached the Code of Conduct. It was alleged that the Member’s conduct during the time leading up to the Council’s vote on its Local Development Plan (“LDP”) was disrespectful and disparaging towards Council officers; that the Member attempted to improperly influence the vote of other members of the Council and failed to disclose a personal and prejudicial interest in the LDP. It was further alleged that the Member failed to declare a personal and prejudicial interest during a Council meeting on 24 January 2023, when the Council voted to approve its LDP. Information was obtained from the Council. Witnesses, including the Complainant, were interviewed. Information was obtained from the Member, who was also interviewed. The Ombudsman found that the Member’s conduct in the time leading up to the Council’s vote on its LDP did not amount to a breach of the Code. The Ombudsman found that the Member had declared a personal interest relating to the LDP during the meeting on 24 January 2023. However, he had failed to appropriately declare a prejudicial interest. It was found that his conduct was therefore suggestive of a breach of the Code. In considering whether the Member’s failure to appropriately declare a personal and prejudicial interest in the LDP merited further action, consideration was given to advice the Member had been provided by the Monitoring Officer, as well as the Member’s refusal to accept the advice, which was an aggravating factor. It was also considered that the member was a relatively new member of the Council at the time of events and that, whilst his failure to declare a prejudicial interest was considered a serious breach of the Code, it was noted that his involvement in the meeting did not impact the Council’s ultimate decision on the LDP. It was noted that the Member subsequently applied to the Standards Committee for dispensation in rel

Mr A complained that Flintshire County Council (“the Council”) had not actioned Ms B’s request to escalate her complaint about care received by her father, Mr C, to stage 2 of the complaints procedure despite her request for escalation. The Ombudsman found that the Council had not followed it’s complaints procedure and had not actioned Ms B’s request for a stage 2 complaint investigation. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation on the basis that within 2 weeks of issuing the decision the Council would: • Write to Ms B confirming that it has escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the Social Services complaint procedure and explain what will happen next.

Ms X complained that Flintshire County Council had failed to rectify numerous repairs in her home. The Ombudsman found that the Council had failed to consider Ms X’s concerns under its formal complaints procedure. She said this caused uncertainty and frustration for Ms X. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to, within 2 weeks, apologise to Ms X that her concerns were not escalated through its formal complaints procedure and to issue a stage 1 complaint response which will include a timeline of planned works and completion.

Mr A complained that Flintshire County Council (“the Council”) failed to collect his waste and respond to his complaint. The Ombudsman found that the Council had logged 17 missed waste collections within a 6 month period despite Mr A’s complaint in July 2025. The Council could not locate Mr A’s complaint response. The Council then closed Mr A’s complaint in August 2025 as part of a clean-up process, even though there had been 8 missed collections logged since Mr A’s original complaint. The Ombudsman found that, although the Council had since taken action to closely monitor Mr A’s collections for a period, no regard had been given to the impact of the missed collections on Mr A, in terms of having to dispose of his own waste and repeatedly chase up the Council. The Ombudsman therefore, instead of investigating, sought and gained the Council’s agreement to transfer Mr A £250 as a time and trouble payment within 2 weeks.

Ms C complained about the way Flintshire County Council dealt with a complaint she raised in October 2024. We investigated why the Council did not escalate her complaint to Stage 2 of its complaints process, in line with the Social Services Complaints Procedure (Wales) Regulations 2005, until the Ombudsman intervened. We found that the Council declined to progress Ms C’s complaint because it did not consider that the issues she raised warranted an independent investigation. However, under the law governing the Social Services complaints procedure, the Council did not have the discretion to make this decision. This failure was maladministration which resulted in frustration and inconvenience for Ms C, who has also expressed a loss of confidence in the Council. We also found evidence that the Council’s approach reflected a systemic issue, which might have impacted complainants in the past and, if it were not addressed, may go on to impact others in the future. The complaint was upheld. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms C and offer her £250 in recognition of her time and trouble in pursuing the complaint. It agreed to remind all relevant staff of the Council’s obligation to offer, and action, a Stage 2 investigation when a complainant remains dissatisfied. The Council also agreed to conduct an audit of all Social Services complaints it had received within the last 2 years, to identify any complainants who had been denied their right to a Stage 2 investigation and to offer them the opportunity to proceed to Stage 2 if it remained practical to do so.

Miss Y complained about the way her landlord, Flintshire County Council, had responded to reports of damp and mould in her home and whether it had taken appropriate action to provide alternative accommodation. The investigation found that the Council failed to identify that Miss Y had made numerous repair requests regarding the same issue. Repair requests were treated in isolation. Officers visited Miss Y’s home on numerous occasions to address new issues, whilst previous repair requests remained outstanding. As such there were many missed opportunities to identify damp and mould and carry out work to address this. The Council did not act in a timely manner once the extent of the works needed to Miss Y’s home were known. Miss Y and her children were left living in unacceptable conditions for 5 months after the Council became aware of damp in her home. The Ombudsman was concerned that the failings identified in this case may be systemic. The failings identified in this case, particularly in relation to identifying and responding to repeated repair requests, are ones from which other organisations can learn. The Ombudsman made a number of recommendations, which the Council accepted. Within 1 month: a) Acknowledge and apologise to Miss Y for the failings identified in this report. b) In addition to the offer of £500 already made by the Council, to offer Miss Y a further financial redress payment of £1,258. This comprises £1,008 for losses of furniture and possessions and £250 for the distress caused to her by the failings identified in this report, making total redress of £1,758. c) Ensure officers from the Housing and Communities department are reminded of the requirement to fully and accurately complete paperwork. d) Contact Miss Y to obtain details of any outstanding work to her current home and provide her with a schedule of works detailing when these will be completed. Within 3 months: e) Develop a process to ensure that repeated repair requests are identified, re

Miss A complained that the Council did not provide her with a response to a formal complaint she submitted in relation to waste collections. Miss A stated that whilst assurances had been made over multiple telephone calls by the Council, at the time of submitting her complaint, her waste had not been collected for 6 weeks. The Ombudsman found that the Council had failed to provide Miss A with a response to her complaint as well as act on the assurances made to her about collecting her waste. As Miss A is registered as disabled, having issues with her mobility, she has been unable to remove the waste herself. The Ombudsman accepted that the Council failed to collect Miss A’s waste or provide her with a response and decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained Flintshire County Council’s agreement to contact Miss A within 1 week to arrange for her outstanding waste to be collected. Flintshire County Council also agreed to write a letter of apology, within 2 weeks, to Miss A for their failings as well as to complete an investigation, within 4 weeks, into why her waste was not collected. Within 2 weeks of the completion of the investigation, Flintshire County Council agreed to implement practical measures to address their failings and to write to Miss A setting out the outcome and actions of the investigation.

Mrs B complained that Flintshire County Council had failed to respond to the complaint she made to it in March 2025. The Ombudsman found that there had been a delay in the Council responding to Mrs B’s complaint and a failure to keep her updated during the delay. The Ombudsman said this caused frustration to Mrs B and 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 lack of updates, to offer a £50 redress payment, and to issue a Stage 2 complaint response within 6 weeks.

Mr and Mrs X complained about Flintshire County Council’s assessment of their care needs. The Ombudsman found that the Council had failed to properly deal with Mr and Mrs X’s complaint in line with the statutory Social Services complaints procedure, which the Ombudsman said denied Mr and Mrs X the right to have their complaint investigated independently. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to apologise to Mr and Mrs X for failing to deal with their complaint in line with its statutory obligations and to appoint an Independent Investigator to investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint within 4 weeks.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that a Member (“the Member”) of Flintshire County Council (“the Council”) had breached the Code of Conduct (“the Code”).  It was alleged that the Member disclosed some confidential information about the Complainant to her neighbours when he had been trying to resolve their concerns. Information was obtained from the Council, including relevant emails exchanged at the time of events, and information was also obtained from the Police. Having considered the evidence gathered, the Ombudsman determined that the Member’s actions were suggestive of a breach of the requirement set out in Paragraph 5(a) of the Code, which states that councillors must not disclose information which should reasonably be regarded as being of a confidential nature, without the express consent of a person authorised to give such consent. However, taking into account that the Member provided an immediate and sincere apology; recognised he should not have disclosed information and provided an assurance the same would not happen again, the Ombudsman determined that no further action was necessary.  The investigation found that the Member had accepted, and reflected on, his contribution to the Complainant’s distress, for which he had been apologetic. 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.

Mrs A complained, on behalf of her daughter, about Flintshire County Council’s (“the Council”) Adult Social Services department. Her daughter had been sent a demand for payment towards care costs, but had not been provided with any letter or explanation about the charges, or the need to contribute. The Ombudsman found that this was a longstanding issue, which Mrs A had raised with the Council in December 2024. Although her correspondence was considered as a complaint at that time, the Council was unable to evidence that a response was provided. The Council had considered the complaint under its own complaint policy, rather than in accordance with the statutory Social Services Complaints Procedure. This caused significant stress to Mrs A and her daughter. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Council agreed to, within 4 weeks, write to Mrs A with an apology for the failure to formally respond to her concerns, investigate her complaint and provide a formal complaint response under the Social Services Complaints Procedure (Wales) Regulations.

Ms D complained about persistent problems with Flintshire County Council’s assisted waste collection service. Ms D said that, since starting the service in around September 2024, her waste and recycling had hardly been collected. The Ombudsman decided that, despite monitoring having been implemented, there continued to be missed collections. On occasions, waste and recycling had been piling up at Ms D’s home. Ms D had to telephone the Council, on a weekly basis, about the issue. This caused stress and inconvenience to Ms D, which in turn affected her physical and mental health. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to, within 4 weeks, remind staff that Ms D’s waste and recycling should be collected in accordance with the Council’s Assisted Collection service and monitor collections for a period of 12 weeks. The Council further agreed to provide Ms D with a written apology for the continued failings in collecting her waste and recycling and offer financial redress of £125 for the inconvenience caused and the time and trouble associated with pursuing her complaints.

Ms A complained that she was not able to visit her sister, who is in her 90s and lives with dementia, inside the Care Home where her sister is a resident. This followed a video call with her niece, which Ms A thought was taking place in a private area of the Care Home, when Ms A had sworn and commented about a complaint she had made to the Care Home. Ms A referred to the difficulties of maintaining contact with her sister if her sister was not able to go out in poor weather. The Council was approached in its commissioning role as it was funding the sister’s placement. The Council agreed to the Ombudsman’s early settlement which included negotiating a mediation settlement that allowed Ms A to visit her sister in the Care Home. In addition, the Council’s Contract Team Manager was to liaise and work jointly with his counterpart in the local authority where the Care Home was based and the Care Home, to develop a policy around virtual contact where a visitor faced being banned from the Care Home that would include a proportionate prior warning system and appeal process. A measure to address the Council’s contract monitoring oversight also formed part of the settlement.

Miss X complained that Flintshire County Council failed to respond to her emails and calls, and that she has been living in a state of disrepair for 18 years. The Ombudsman found that the Council had failed to respond to Miss X’s concerns. The Ombudsman said that this caused uncertainty and frustration to Miss X. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to, within 3 weeks, apologise to Miss X for the oversight in not logging her concerns as a formal complaint, provide an explanation for the delay and the lack of response, and issue a Stage 1 response in line with its complaints procedure.

The Ombudsman received a complaint alleging that a Member (“the Member”) of Flintshire County Council (“the Council”) and Saltney Town Council had breached the Code of Conduct by abusing their position and using the resources of their authority improperly when they requested the delivery of sandbags to their close family member’s property during a severe flooding event. The investigation considered whether the evidence gathered was suggestive that paragraphs 7(a) and 7(b) of the Code had been breached and based on the gathered evidence, it further considered whether paragraphs 11 or 14 of the Code had also been breached. The evidence confirmed that the Member had not told Council officers that their reports of flooding or request for the delivery of sandbags related to their close family member’s property. It also confirmed that the Member did not attempt to apply pressure to obtain preferential treatment for their requests outside of the Council’s established emergency protocol in operation that day or that they were reluctant to follow this process. The Ombudsman’s view was that this did not suggest the Member had breached paragraphs 7(a) or 7(b) of the Code. However, by failing to declare their personal and prejudicial interest in matters which affected their close family member’s property, the Ombudsman concluded this was suggestive of some technical breaches of paragraphs 11(2)(a), 11(2)(b), 14(1)(d) and 14(1)(e) of the Code. Based on the evidence, the Ombudsman was not persuaded that the likely breaches of the Code in relation to interests also breached paragraphs 6(1)(a) which relates to disrepute or 7(a) (misuse of position). It was appreciated that this was a crisis situation and that had the Member declared a personal and prejudicial interest when they contacted the Council, this would have alerted the Council officers to the fact that the requests related to their close family member, and likely have given the perception that they were trying to use their

Ms X complained that Flintshire County Council failed to respond to the complaint she submitted in October 2024 regarding repairs to her home. The Ombudsman found that, while the Council had attended Ms X’s home and addressed her concerns informally, it had failed to provide her with a formal complaint response. The Ombudsman said this caused uncertainty and frustration for Ms X. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to, within 2 weeks, offer an apology to Ms X for the oversight in not providing a formal complaint response, issue a formal complaint response to Ms X outlining the repairs it can and cannot undertake, and provide Ms X with a timeline of when the works it can undertake will be completed.

Mr X complained that Flintshire County Council had failed to enforce planning regulations in relation to his neighbour accommodating several static caravans on land contrary to the Enforcement Notice issued in 2023. The Ombudsman concluded that whilst the Council had responded to the complaint and agreed to undertake steps to enforce the decision, it had failed to indicate when it would undertake the steps outlined in its Step 2 response. 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 issue a further response (within 3 weeks) to detail when the proposed site visit will likely take place. An additional response should also be issued to Mr X following the site visit to explain its proposal for dealing with the non-compliance.

Mrs P complained that Flintshire County Council (“the Council”) in its capacity as her landlord failed to take appropriate action to address a problem with water overflowing from guttering on a neighbouring private property against the wall of the property she rents. She said this had caused a damp problem in her kitchen. Having reviewed Mrs P’s complaint, the Ombudsman was concerned that following engagement with the neighbour the Council wrongly assumed in April 2024 that the problem had been fixed. It had previously asked the neighbour to confirm that the problem had been resolved but took no further action despite not having received any further contact. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs P and explain the steps it intends to take to address the problem and provide reassurance that it will continue to pursue the matter until it is confirmed that the problem has been resolved. It also agreed to within 3 months provide an update on progress to the Ombudsman to demonstrate that it has made satisfactory efforts to resolve the problem, and if the problem remains unresolved, that it has identified reasonable further steps it can take.

We received a complaint from a fellow councillor (“the Complainant”) that a Member (“the Member”) of Flintshire County Council (“the Council”) had breached the Code of Conduct (“the Code”), when he put forward, and asked his political party colleagues to consider, a generous donation which had been offered by a local businessman.  The donation included substantial financial assistance to the Member’s political party, and financial help with the Member’s, and others’, political campaigns as candidates. The donation offer was contingent on the Member’s party forming an alliance with another party to achieve a change in political leadership at the Council.  The Complainant was concerned, among other things, that the offer was improper with serious consequences for the impartial running of the Council as well as being a potential criminal offence.  The Complainant felt the Member had encouraged acceptance of the offer by his party colleagues when he should have immediately declined it. We decided that an investigation was appropriate, given the serious nature of the allegations, and that the following paragraphs of the Code should be considered: 7(a) – [members] must not use [their] position improperly to confer on or secure for [themselves], or any other person, an advantage or create or avoid for [themselves], or any other person, a disadvantage. 6(1)(a) – [members] must not conduct [themselves] in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing [their] office or authority into disrepute. 9(b) – [members] must avoid accepting from anyone gifts, material benefits or services for [themselves], or any person, which might place [members], or reasonably appear to place [members], under an improper obligation. We obtained information from the local party’s treasurer, the Police, the Electoral Commission (whose role it is to make sure political parties and candidates comply with legal requirements in regard to donations), the Complainant and the Member. We found the

Mr X complained that Flintshire County Council failed to resolve the problem of built up standing traffic, resulting in unacceptable levels of air pollution and noise, as a result of the alteration of traffic light sequence outside Mr X’s home. The Ombudsman decided that whilst the Council had responded to Mr X’s complaint at Step 1 of the Council’s internal complaint process, it had failed to advise Mr X of his right to escalate his complaint to Step 2 if it fails to resolve the issue to Mr X’s satisfaction. The Ombudsman said this caused uncertainty, frustration, and inconvenience to Mr X, and resulted in Mr X having to prematurely approach the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to issue an apology to Mr X for its oversight, and to inform Mr X of his right of escalation should it not resolve the complaint to his satisfaction. It also agreed to consider undertaking a meeting with Mr X to discuss a remedy to his complaint (within 3 weeks).

Miss J complained that she had not received a response from Flintshire County Council to a complaint she raised about flooding outside her home. The Ombudsman found there had been a delay in responding to the complaint. She felt this caused additional frustration and inconvenience to Miss J. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to write to Miss J, within 2 weeks, apologising and explaining the reasons for the delay. Additionally, to undertake a site visit and to commit to responding to the complaint within 2 months.

Miss F and Mr G complained that Flintshire County Council had failed to respond to their complaint relating to school transport. Miss F and Mr G had initially complained in September 2023 and asked for the complaint to be escalated further in January 2024. The Ombudsman found that the Council had failed to escalate the complaint to Stage 2 of its complaints procedure in January 2024 when it was requested to do so, causing frustration to Miss F and Mr G. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to apologise to Miss F and Mr G for failing to escalate their complaint, explain why the complaint was not escalated, offer a £25 redress payment, and issue a Stage 2 complaint response within 4 weeks.

Ms A complained about damp and mould at her property which she rents from Flintshire County Council. She said that despite complaining to the Council in November 2023 it had refused to escalate her complaint made in January 2024 to Stage 2 of the complaint’s procedure but had logged it as a new Stage 1 complaint. The Ombudsman decided that the Council had failed to respond to the complaint that Ms A made to it in November 2023 formally, and so had treated her more recent complaint under Stage 1 of the complaint’s procedure. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to contact Ms A within 10 working days to confirm whether she still wanted to escalate her complaint to Stage 2 of the complaint’s procedure and if so, to agree the scope of the complaint. Within a further 10days provide a response to the Stage 2 complaint and apologise that the previous complaint was not responded to formally.

Mr X complained about the actions taken by Flintshire County Council from November 2021 when his daughter, Y, went to live with her grandmother and then to a regulated care home. Mr X was unhappy with the independent Stage 2 investigation of his complaint. Mr X was also unhappy as he considered his fourth complaint had not been addressed by the Council. The Ombudsman was unable to consider the complaints that related to Y, as she had not provided her authorisation for the Ombudsman to do so, which would have involved the accessing of her personal records. Therefore, the assessment of Mr X’s complaint focused on his complaints relating solely to him. To resolve Mr X’s complaint, the Council agreed to, within 20 working days, issue a further response to Mr X to include an apology for not actioning his request for a meeting to be face to face due to his hearing impairment and for any confusion about the handling of his fourth complaint letter, together with a further explanation about how this had been dealt with. The Ombudsman considered this action was reasonable to resolve Mr X’s complaint.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that a Member (“the Member”) of Flintshire County Council (“the Council”) and Connah’s Quay Town Council (“the Town Council”) breached the Code of Conduct. It was alleged that the Member had made inappropriate sexualised comments to a vulnerable member of the public, bullied Council Officers, disclosed confidential information, abused his position of trust and failed to declare a personal and prejudicial interest. 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 suspend the Member from the Relevant Authorities, as set out in the Local Government Act 2000, for 4 months. The Case Tribunal’s decision is available here .  The Member did not appeal the decision.