PSOW Individual Decisions

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

The Ombudsman’s office received a complaint that a member (“the Member”) of Gwynedd Council (“the Council”) had breached the Code of Conduct.  It was alleged that the Member had behaved inappropriately when she responded in German to correspondence she received in Welsh. The investigation considered whether the Member failed to comply with the following provisions of the Code of Conduct: 4(a) – Members must carry out their duties and responsibilities with due regard to the principle that there should be equality of opportunity for all people, regardless of their gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, age or religion. 4(b) – Members must show respect and consideration for others. 6(1)(a) – Members must not conduct themselves in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing their office or authority into disrepute. The Member admitted responding to 2 emails written in Welsh, in German.  She expressed remorse and regret for her actions.  She said that she was unaware the Council’s translation services were available to her for this type of correspondence.  However, the investigation found that, given the Member’s length of service, she ought to have known that the Council had a translation service and that responding in German would be perceived as inappropriate.  The Ombudsman therefore considered that the Member’s conduct was indicative of a breach of paragraphs 4(a), 4(b) and 6(1)(a) of the Code of Conduct. The report on the investigation was referred to the Monitoring Officer of Gwynedd Council for consideration by the Council’s Standards Committee. The Standards Committee concluded that the Member had breached paragraphs 4(a), 4(b) and 6(1)(a) of the Code of Conduct.  Accordingly, the Standards Committee decided that the Member should be suspended for 1 month, be required to attend training and provide a written apology to the Complainant within 3 weeks.  The Standards Committee also recommended for the Council to consider assisting Members when t

Mr A complained that the Council had failed to communicate and deal with his housing needs which rendered him homeless during 2021. The Ombudsman was not satisfied with the Council’s responses to Mr A at both stages of its complaints procedure. Both responses lacked detail and failed to provide sufficient information regarding its actions and decisions during its dealings with Mr A. The Ombudsman contacted the Council and it agreed to write a letter to Mr A responding to the issues he raised in his original complaint 1) Detailing what action it has taken to deal with the issues raised by Mr A, providing the rationale behind its decisions, where possible. 2) Provide an explanation for any of its decisions to decline any resolutions suggested by Mr A during the time he complained of. This should be completed within 30 working days of the date of this decision letter.

Mr X complained that he had not received a response from the Council following his complaint about his housing benefit and support for Council Tax. The Ombudsman found that the Council had failed to provide a complaint response. The Council agreed to complete the following in settlement of Mr X’s complaint by 1 September 2022, as an alternative to investigating it: a) Provide Mr X with an apology for the failure to acknowledge and respond to his complaint b) Provide an explanation for the delay c) Provide a complaint response.

Mrs A complained about her son’s education, including the unlawful deprivation of education and a failure to comply with relevant legislation and guidance. The assessment found that the Council had not properly investigated and responded to Mrs A’s concerns. To resolve this, the Council agreed to arrange an investigation of Mrs A’s complaint and seek to address all of her concerns in accordance with its complaints policy, including the use of an independent investigator, where appropriate. The Council agreed to complete the investigation and issue a response within 3 months.

The Ombudsman received a complaint from a Member (“the Complainant”) of Tywyn Town Council (“the Town Council”), that a Former Member of the Town Council had failed to observe the Code of Conduct for Members. It was alleged that the Former Member had made false allegations about the Former Clerk and other Members of the Town Council, and undermined and disparaged the Former Clerk at Town Council meetings. The investigation considered whether the Former Member’s alleged conduct suggested a failure to show respect and consideration for others, and bullying and harassing behaviour, which brought the Former Member and the Town Council into disrepute. The Ombudsman obtained information from the Monitoring Officer of Gwynedd Council (“the Council”), the Town Council, witnesses and the Former Member. During the investigation several attempts were made to obtain a formal statement from the Complainant without success. The Ombudsman’s investigation considered that although the Former Member resigned from the Town Council during the investigation, the Former Member had remained a Member of the Council and stood for re-election to the Council. However, ultimately, the Former Member was not returned by the local electorate and was therefore no longer a Member at Town or County level. As a result, the Ombudsman was no longer satisfied that an investigation into the complaint was in the public interest, and it was decided to discontinue the investigation.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that a Member (“the Member”) of Gwynedd Council (“the Council”) had breached the Code of Conduct when he shared material on his Facebook account which cast doubt on the existence of COVID-19 and about the vaccine, and when he appeared on a television show to discuss his views on COVID-19 and the vaccine. The Ombudsman reviewed the member’s Facebook activity and his appearance on the television show.  The former Chief Executive of the Council was interviewed and comments were sought from the Member. The Ombudsman found that the Member was entitled to freedom of expression and to hold and express his views regarding the COVID-19 pandemic and the COVID-19  vaccine (under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998).  The Member’s right to free speech allowed him to say things that may have been shocking or offensive to some people.  The former Chief Executive’s evidence suggested that the Member was not representing the ‘Council’s position’.  The Member did not issue directions to members of the public in contravention of the public health measures in place at the time.  Therefore, the Ombudsman did not consider there to be evidence that the Member breached the Code of Conduct.

Mrs P complained that the Council failed to take appropriate action to address complaints of anti-social behaviour by Mr A, who was living next door to a rental property she owned in Bala. Mr A’s tenancy in the adjacent property had been arranged through the Council’s private leasing scheme. She said that she and her tenant (“Ms B”) complained repeatedly for over 8 months and that Ms B had provided extensive evidence of the anti-social behaviour, but that the Council’s responses were sporadic and inconsistent. Having assessed the available evidence, the Ombudsman was concerned that the Council had frequently failed to respond promptly to Mrs P and Ms B’s reports of alleged anti-social behaviour, even after Mrs P made a formal complaint. The Council had also missed an opportunity to provide a single corporate complaint response setting out in one place the positions of the different departments which were involved. This may have clarified the need for Ms B to provide new evidence in order for the Council to renew investigations into a potential statutory nuisance. The Ombudsman approached the Council in relation to the communication concerns identified above. In settlement of the complaint, the Council agreed to within 1 month apologise to Mrs P and Ms B for the communication failings identified by the Ombudsman and to pay them £125 each in respect of associated time and trouble.

The Ombudsman received a complaint from the Chair of the Personnel Committee of Tywyn Town Council (“the Council”) that a Member (“the Member”) of the Council had failed to observe the Council’s Code of Conduct for Members. It was alleged that the Member had been disrespectful to the Clerk of the Council (“the Clerk”) and had repeatedly undermined her.  The complaint related to correspondence sent by the Member to the Clerk and correspondence sent by the Member about the Clerk. The Ombudsman concluded that the Member’s correspondence included derogatory personal comments which were disrespectful and that comments about the Clerk’s experience were intended to undermine the Clerk.  The Member also used gendered language when commenting on the Clerk. The Ombudsman determined that the Member may have breached the Council’s Code of Conduct, in particular, paragraphs 4(a), 4(b) and 4(c) as the Member failed to carry out their duties and responsibilities with due regard to the principle that there should be equality of opportunity for all people, regardless of their gender; a failure to show respect and consideration, and bullying or harassing behaviour of the Clerk.  The Ombudsman also found that the Member’s actions could reasonably be regarded as behaviour which might bring the office of Member or the Council into disrepute and a potential breach of paragraph (6(1)(a) of the Code of Conduct. The Ombudsman referred his investigation report to the Monitoring Officer of Gwynedd Council for consideration by its Standards Committee. The Standards Committee censured Councillor Stevens as he resigned from the Council prior to the hearing.  It said it would have suspended him for the fullest period possible and asked him to reflect on his behaviour.

Mr X complained about the lack of action on the Council’s part in rectifying the gradual deterioration of a Listed Building in his local area, via the service of legal notices upon the owner with a view to ensuring that maintenance work is undertaken. He also complained about the lack of updates received from the Council as to its progress, other than when he actively chased for further information. The Council satisfied the Ombudsman that it was actively pursuing the matter, but that there were a number of challenging legal, jurisdictional and practical obstacles to progress. The Council agreed to, within 20 working days, write to Mr X to set out what it had done thus far to address the problems complained about, to set out its plan of action going forward (as far as it was able to) and to update Mr X regularly in the future. The Ombudsman considered this to constitute an appropriate settlement and did not investigate.

Ms A complained about the Council’s management of her housing application and its decision to offer her 2 properties which were unsuitable despite being aware of her partner’s ill health. Ms A also complained about the discriminatory nature of the Council’s new Allocations Policy where local connection based on a parent, sibling or child relationship and not other family unit types. She said this had led to her being placed for a time in a lower housing band than she should have been. Ms A also referred to communication and other failings by the Council’s Housing staff which she said caused her to miss out on being shortlisted for properties. The Ombudsman’s investigation found a number of administrative failings on the part of the Council which meant it had not acted in accordance with its statutory duties or given due consideration to pertinent aspects of the national Code of Guidance (“the Code”) governing housing allocations. The Ombudsman also found evidence of communication failings by the Council. He upheld these aspects Ms A’s complaint. The Ombudsman did not find the Council’s Allocations Policy to be “discriminatory” and on the evidence considered he concluded that Ms A had not missed out on any allocations following the introduction of the new policy. He was also satisfied that the Council had put in place measures to prevent further offers of unsuitable properties. These parts of Ms A’s complaint were not upheld. The Ombudsman’s recommendations centred on the following. The Council’s Chief Executive should apologise to Ms A and her partner for the failings identified, and Housing staff should be reminded of the importance of making enquiries to satisfy themselves that applicants’ housing applications are correct. Finally, the Ombudsman recommended that the Council review its implementation and procedures to ensure it was compliant with its statutory duties and took into account the Code.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that a Member (“the Member”) of Gwynedd Council (“the Council”) had breached the Code of Conduct (“the Code”). It was alleged that the Member posted a homophobic comment on Facebook.  The Member was not acting in his official role as a member when he posted the comment, therefore, the investigation considered whether the Member breached paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Code, which says that members must not conduct themselves in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing their office or authority into disrepute. The information gathered during the investigation showed that in October 2020, the complainant’s newly appointed employee posted on Facebook, “think I work for the best boss” and tagged the complainant.  The Member, posting from his personal Facebook account, replied, “do you suck for a living?”. The employee was contacted as part of the Ombudsman’s investigation, however, he did not provide the Ombudsman with a completed witness statement.  The evidence gathered was put to the Member and he was interviewed as part of the investigation.  During interview, he said that there was no homophobic intent behind his comment and, whilst he accepted in hindsight that his comment could be perceived as homophobic, he said that his intention was to point out his view that the employee was “creeping up” to his employer. Whilst the Ombudsman appreciated why the complainant and others had interpreted the comment as homophobic, he did not consider the Member’s explanation to be wholly implausible given that “sucking up” is a term commonly used to describe sycophantic behaviour. The Member said that he regretted his actions and that faced with the same circumstances again, he would not have commented on the Facebook post.  He also said that he was willing to apologise to the complainant and his employee for the offence that he had caused, which the Ombudsman encouraged him to do. The Ombudsman did not consider it in the public interest

The Ombudsman received a complaint from a member of Gwynedd Council and Caernarfon Royal Town Council that a Member (“the Member”) of those Councils had failed to observe the Councils’ Codes of Conduct for Members. It was alleged that the Member failed to show respect and consideration to the complainant over several months, and his correspondence was suggestive of a course of conduct intended to bully and/or harass the complainant.  It was alleged that the Member used, or attempted to use, his position improperly and brought his office or authority into disrepute by posting information provided to him as an elected member on Facebook, posting information which he knew was incorrect on Facebook, posting confidential information on Facebook and by being involved in a police incident.  The complainant also said that the Member made vexatious, malicious or frivolous complaints to the Clerk, the Ombudsman and the police about the complainant. The investigation considered whether the Member failed to comply with the following provisions of the Code of Conduct: 4(b) – members must show respect and consideration for others. 4(c) – members must not use bullying behaviour or harass any person. 5(a) – members must not to disclose confidential information or information which should reasonably be regarded as being of a confidential nature, without the express consent of a person authorised to give such consent, or unless required by law to do so. 6(1)(a) – members must not to conduct themselves in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing their office or authority into disrepute. 6(1)(d) – members must not make vexatious, malicious or frivolous complaints against other members or anyone who works for, or on behalf of, their authority. 7(a) – members must not, in their official capacity or otherwise, use or attempt to 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 oth

Miss A submitted a complaint on behalf of Mr B about Gwynedd Council. Miss A said that the Council had not responded to all points raised in a complaint submitted to it by Mr B. The Ombudsman found that the Council had not fully responded to Mr B’s complaint. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to provide a further response to Mr B, addressing all outstanding issues, within 20 working days.

Mrs X complained that she had not received a response to her complaint. In considering Mrs X’s complaint, the Ombudsman was concerned about the delays that she had experienced, that she had not received a response and that she was inconvenienced by the Council’s lack of action. He decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to: • Provide Mrs X with an apology for the delay in responding to her complaint. • Provide Mrs X with an explanation for the delay. • Provide Mrs X with a full complaint response. The actions agreed had already been carried out by the time his enquiries were concluded.

Complaint about the time taken for adaptation works to be carried out to home under the Disabled Facilities Grant scheme. COMPL said the Council had failed to provide adequate updates and given incorrect information and unrealistic timescales and was unhappy with the explanations provided by the Council. The Ombudsman found that some delays were not unreasonable or within the Council’s control. The Council made appropriate efforts to mitigate delays throughout the process. However, the overall timescale for undertaking the building works, originally agreed in July 2016, appeared excessive. The Council has acknowledged and apologised for shortcomings in its complaint responses and reduced the term of the legal charge in relation to the funded works from 10 years to 5 years, which appeared reasonable. The Ombudsman found that the Council’s initial complaint response was brief and lacked adequate detail about the reasons for the delays. The Council agreed to within 20 working days: 1. Provide a written explanation for the delays, to include a timeline of events and details of the steps taken by the Council to address the delays. 2. Review the matter to identify areas of improvement and learning and provide details of any measures taken to reduce the chances of this situation reoccurring. 3. Remind staff involved that service users should be provided with timely and meaningful updates if it is not possible to progress works within anticipated timescales. The Ombudsman’s view was that the above action was reasonable to settle the complaint.