PSOW Individual Decisions

Mrs X complained about the way Grwp Cynefin (“the Association”) had responded to reports of standing water in her garden. She said that as the Association had not carried out work to make the garden safe, she had done so herself at significant financial cost. The Ombudsman found that the Association had not responded promptly to the report made by Mrs X, and that when an officer from the Association did visit her home she was given incorrect information. The Ombudsman was also concerned that the Association had not fully considered the needs of Mrs X and her children in addressing this matter. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Association’s agreement to apologise to Mrs X for the delay in responding to her and for providing her with incorrect information and to offer her a payment of £250. The Association also agreed to contact Mrs X and offer to conduct an assessment of her and her children’s needs and make any necessary referrals arising from that assessment. The Association also agreed that when the outcome of those assessments are known, it would re-consider making a reasonable contribution to the costs incurred by Mrs X in carrying out work to her garden.

Mr Q complained that Grwp Cynefin failed to respond to issues raised regarding its involvement with his family following his separation from his children’s mother. The Ombudsman found that the Association failed to keep Mr Q updated with the complaint and the reasons for the delay in concluding its investigation. This caused additional frustration and uncertainty for Mr Q. She decided to settle the complaint withoutan investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Association’s agreement to apologise to Mr Q, explain the reasons for the delay and issue its complaint response within two weeks.

Miss H complained that Grwp Cynefin had failed to provide responses to her concerns about damage she said it caused to her private property. The Ombudsman found that Miss H had corresponded with the Association following its Stage 1 complaint response, but it had missed opportunities to escalate her complaint to Stage 2, the final stage of its complaints procedure. The Ombudsman said this caused delay and frustration to Miss H and decided to settle the complaint without a formal investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Association’s agreement to investigate Miss H’s complaint and provide a Stage 2 complaint response within 4 weeks.

Mr X complained that his landlord, Grwp Cynefin, had failed to inform him of structural works being undertaken at an attached property. The works went on for seven months in total, during which time he was never given an end date for the works, and there was confusion about the start time of the building works each morning. Grwp Cynefin accepted that there were shortcomings in its communication and arrangements with Mr X. It said that it had learned for the experience and that any future works of this magnitude would be handled differently. It agreed: • To inspect issues raised concerning the boundary fence, and undertake required remedial work; • To make an ex gratia payment to Mr X of £750, within one month, to reflect the disturbance and inconvenience, in addition to a £250 payment made to him whilst the works were still ongoing