PSOW Individual Decisions

Ms A complained about the action taken by the Council to address her concerns about trespassing and vehicles parking on her private property. The Ombudsman found that the Council had provided responses briefly outlining action it had taken to address the complaint. However, this had not fully resolved the concerns raised. The complaint response did not comprehensively detail the action taken, or planned, or provide Ms A with any available options for if she experienced further issues. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to provide Ms A with a comprehensive response to her complaint within 4 weeks. It agreed to explain the action taken by the Council to address the concerns and clarify any outstanding actions agreed, with timescales for completion. In addition, it agreed to confirm the options available to Ms A if she had any further concerns.

Mrs A complained that the Council had refused to consider her complaint about a housing development near to her home. The Council had also refused to respond to any further communication about the development. Mrs A said that her right to complain had been taken away and she felt bullied by the Council. The Ombudsman found that, in reaching its decision to restrict Mrs A’s contact, the Council had not followed its Managing Contact – Unacceptable Actions by Customers Policy (“the Policy”). Mrs A was not informed that the decision to restrict her contact had been taken under the Policy. This meant she was not informed of her right to appeal the decision. This caused Mrs A inconvenience and frustration. The Ombudsman agreed to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Council agreed to, within 4 weeks, reconsider its decision to restrict Mrs A’s contact with the Council in accordance with the Policy, to write to Mrs A notifying her of the Council’s position and to provide her with a written apology for the failure to comply with the Policy in reaching its decision.

Mr A complained, on behalf of Miss B, that the Council had not provided an appropriate written response following the resolution of Miss B’s complaint. The Ombudsman found that whilst meetings had taken place with the team manager and social worker to discuss Miss B’s complaint, she was not provided with an appropriate written response, which set out the terms of the resolution agreed, in accordance with policy. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to issue a letter to Mr A, within 2 weeks, to apologise for failing to provide an appropriate complaint closure letter. The Council also agreed to issue a letter to Mr A, within 4 weeks, setting out the actions that have been taken to ensure appropriate letters are being issued, which provide the agreed terms following the resolution of a complaint.

Mrs S complained that Isle of Anglesey County Council refused to investigate her complaint about a breach of planning conditions, other than to ask the developer whether the height of the properties was correct. She said the Council refused to request an independent assessment be carried out. The Ombudsman found that the Council had accepted the assurances provided by the developer in respect of the height of the properties concerned and it had not sought to independently ratify the measurements provided. She considered that this called into question the robustness of the Council’s investigation of the matter. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to, within 6 weeks, obtain independent confirmation of the height of the properties on the development to ensure that there had been no breach of planning conditions.

A member of Isle of Anglesey County Council (“the Member”) referred himself to my office after commenting in a meeting “bod angen saethu pob Tory” (“that all Tories should be shot”). Evidence of widespread media coverage; complaints to the Council; a complaint to a governing body of which the Member was a member and his own admission, were suggestive that a breach of the Code of Conduct may have occurred. The Ombudsman found that the evidence suggested paragraphs 4(b) and 6(1)(a) of the Code may have been breached and referred her report to the Standards Committee of the Isle of Anglesey County Council. The Standards Committee determined that the Member had failed to comply with paragraphs 4(b) and 6(1)(a) of the Code.  It determined that a censure be imposed on the Member.  It also made 2 recommendations in an effort to support its aim of maintaining public confidence.

Ms A complained about the Council taking legal action for council tax (CT) arrears. She also referred to the Council’s lack of response to her emails querying this and raising a possible overpayment of CT the previous year. Ms A, who has autism, had mentioned this in one of her emails to the Council in July 2024. Ms A said that getting threatening letters month after month while the Council was ignoring her had made her anxious. The Ombudsman found that in previous years the Council had to an extent taken into account Ms A’s autism and made adjustments to its CT service. However, the Ombudsman noted that there were opportunities for the Council to have done more in terms of meeting Ms A’s need, including when it came to more recent communication with her. The Ombudsman considered that there were shortcomings here. The Ombudsman was critical that the Council had not responded in a timely manner to Ms A’s emails. The Ombudsman noted that the Council had previously apologised for this and agreed that if she maintained the CT payment arrangement it would waive the 2024 court cost that Ms A had incurred. As part of an early resolution settlement the Council also agreed that it would provide Ms A with a CT statement so she had a clear picture of her CT liability for 2023/2024; that it would apologise again for its delayed response and set out its position concerning a further waiving of court costs for 2023. The Council in conjunction with its Equality Officer would also see if there were additional points of learning from Ms A’s case in terms of communication/reasonable adjustments.

Mr B complained that Isle of Anglesey County Council (“the Council”) failed to discharge its responsibilities for road safety prior to its approval of a planning application. Specifically, that the Council did not ensure the highway complied with national standards on splay visibility. The Ombudsman found no evidence of any failings in the Council’s handling of the planning application. However, the Ombudsman noted Mr B had sent three emails to the Council in September 2023, but he had not received a response. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to apologise to Mr B and to provide him with a response to his email correspondence, within 30 working days.

Mr L complained that despite escalating his concerns to stage 2 of the Councils complaint’s procedure, he had not received a response. The Ombudsman found that although the Council wrote to Mr Land addressed part of his concerns, it had failed to act in accordance with its statutory complaints procedure and issue a formal written response. She said this caused frustration to Mr L. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to provide an apology and explanation for the delay and issue a formal complaint response within 30 working days.

Mr G complained that Isle of Anglesey County Council had inappropriately applied contact restrictions against him under its “Managing Contact: Unacceptable Actions by Customers” policy (“the Policy”). Having considered the complaint, the Ombudsman was concerned that that there were outstanding actions required of the Council under the Policy. In particular, the Ombudsman sought confirmation that the Council would carry out a review of the contact restrictions, as required 6 months after restrictions are applied. The Ombudsman was pleased that the Council agreed to carry out the following actions in settlement of the complaint within 6 weeks: a) carry out a review of the contact restrictions in place in relation to Mr G under the Policy b) inform Mr G and the Ombudsman of the outcome of the review and, for any restrictions that remain in place, confirm the nature and duration of the restrictions.

Miss X complained that the Isle of Anglesey County Council failed to formally respond to her complaint submitted in August 2023. The Ombudsman decided that the Council had not acted in accordance with its formal complaint process, and that there was oversight in responding formally to the complaint. She said this caused frustration and uncertainty to Miss X. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to issue an apology for the delay and oversight in responding, and issue a formal complaint response within 2 weeks.

Mr A complained that the Council had failed to respond to a complaint about a water leak from a neighbouring property which he had hand-delivered to it in June 2023. He also complained that the Council had informed the Ombudsman that it had not received a complaint. The Ombudsman found that the Council had incorrectly informed her office that it had not received Mr A’s complaint and it had failed to log his complaint appropriately. The Ombudsman said this caused frustration for Mr A. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to apologise to Mr A, explain what happened to his complaint, provide a Stage 2 complaint response, offer a payment of £150 and to provide feedback to relevant staff regarding its complaint procedures within 4 weeks.

Mr A complained that the Council failed to properly address his complaint that vehicles were accessing his neighbour’s property along a footpath passing house. The Ombudsman found that the Council had not addressed Mr A’s complaint properly nor reasonably. She said that this amounted to maladministration and was an injustice to Mr A. To resolve Mr A’s complaint, the Council agreed to apologise to Mr A and to address his complaint properly. It agreed to do this within 2 months.

Mrs S complained that despite raising concerns with Isle of Anglesey County Council since 2020, she had not received an adequate complaint response. The Ombudsman found that the Council had not acted in line with its statutory complaints procedure and failed to provide adequate updates to Mrs S. She said this caused frustration to Mrs S and decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Councils agreement to provide Mrs S with an apology for the delay, issue a complaint response, and provide Mrs S with a time and trouble payment of £50 within 30 working days.

Mr E complained about the way the Isle of Anglesey County Council handled his complaint. The Ombudsman decided that the Council had not informed Mr E that he had completed its complaints process and failed to address all elements of his complaint. She said this caused frustration and uncertainty to Mr E. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to apologise to Mr E, provide an explanation for the failure, offer to pay £50 redress and issue a Stage 2 complaint response which addresses Mr E’s outstanding concerns by 12 June 2023.

Mr S complained that the Isle of Anglesey County Council had instructed an enforcement agent to obtain payment of his unpaid council tax. Mr S had raised a complaint with the Council about the method used to obtain payment, but the Council had not responded. The Ombudsman decided that the Council had failed to act in accordance with its statutory complaints procedure and had not responded to Mr S’ complaint. She said this caused frustration and distress to Mr S. As an alternative to an investigation, the Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to provide Mr S with an apology for the delay in responding and issue a formal response within 30 working days.

Mr S complained that he had not received a response to his most recent communication with the Council in July 2022. Mr S further complained that decisions made in respect of his Council Tax were incorrect and that the Council failed to correct it. The Ombudsman found that there was no evidence of maladministration or service failure in respect of the Councils decisions regarding Mr S’ Council Tax. However the Ombudsman was concerned that Mr S had not received a response to his most recent communication. As an alternative to an investigation, the Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to apologise and provide an explanation to Mr S for the delay within 20 working days. The Ombudsman accepted this as a resolution to Mr S’ complaint.

Miss X complained about the way the Council responded to reports about water leakage in her Council owned flat in November 2020. Following the commencement of the Ombudsman’s investigation, the Council put forward a proposal to resolve Miss X’s complaint. In light of the possible investigation outcomes, the Ombudsman decided it was appropriate to conclude the investigation of Miss X’s complaint by discontinuation because of the action proposed by the Council which Miss X agreed would resolve her complaint. The Council agreed to: a) Make a financial redress payment of £500 for the inconvenience caused. b) Make a financial redress payment of £500 as payment towards Miss X’s moving costs and additional carpeting. The Ombudsman considered that the action the Council said it would take was a reasonable and proportionate outcome.

Mr X complained that the Council wrongfully disposed his bench when a neighbour had arranged for their heater to be collected. Mr X also complained that despite putting a formal complaint in to the Council, he received no apology and was left inconvenienced by the Councils actions. The Ombudsman was concerned that Mr X was inconvenienced by these actions and therefore contacted the Council. As an alternative to an investigation, the Council agreed to issue Mr X with an apology letter, and to also offer a financial redress of £120 by 17 June 2022. The Ombudsman accepted this as a resolution to Mr X’s complaint.

Mr A complained that the Isle of Anglesey County Council refused to take responsibility for damage caused to his property as a result of drainage works it undertook to alleviate the risk of internal flooding to properties in the vicinity of Mr A’s home address. The Ombudsman found that the Council had appointed an Independent Company to visit the site and prepare a report on whether its flood alleviation scheme was responsible for the flooding in Mr A’s garden. She also found that the Council offered Mr A the opportunity to discuss the report with the Independent Company, but due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the meeting did not take place. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to offer Mr A the further opportunity to discuss the increased groundwater in his garden with the Independent Company, within 20 working days.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that a Member (“the Member”) of Amlwch Town Council (“the Council”) had breached the Code of Conduct when, in their role as a director of a charity, they made an application for an Economic Resilience Fund grant from the Isle of Anglesey County Council (“the County Council”) without the authority of the charity and ignoring the views of other directors of the charity that it was not eligible for the grant. It was also alleged that the application made by the Member contained false information and that, once the funding was received, they attempted to transfer the funds into their personal account without authority. The Ombudsman reviewed information received from the County Council, the Council, the Member and North Wales Police. The member said that her action, made in her personal capacity as a director of the charity, were in the interests of the charity and the community. The Member was unsuccessful in their attempt to transfer the funds into their personal bank account, and the funds were returned when the ineligibility was identified. North Wales Police confirmed that it was not investigating the allegations as the Council did not wish to pursue a complaint. This suggested that the Council was not of the view that there was any criminal or fraudulent intent on the Member’s part. The Ombudsman also considered that the Member was not standing for re-election to the Council, the County Council or any other Town or Community Council within the County Council area. Therefore, the Ombudsman was no longer satisfied that an investigation into the complaint was in the public interest and decided to discontinue the investigation.

Mr X complained that the Council had failed to deal with his complaint about unwanted golf balls straying onto his property from a nearby golf club. Mr X said that the Council had failed to effectively control the risk of the stray balls. The Ombudsman found that the Council had failed to log Mr X’s concerns as a complaint. The Council agreed to complete the following in settlement of Mr X’s complaint by 12 May 2022: a) Provide an apology to Mr X that his concerns were not logged as a complaint b)Provide a complaint response c) Provide clarification to Mr X on the current position and provide an undertaking that Mr X will be updated when the Council is in a position to make a final decision on the safety issues identified.

Ms A complained that Direct Payments offered by the council were insufficient, that carer assessments were not in place and that adaptation work to her property had not been progressed because she was unable to appoint an agent. The council agreed to help Ms A identify and appoint an agent, to offer carer assessments and to provide Ms A information with information on the dispute resolution process so that concerns about Direct Payments could be addressed.

Ms X complained that the Isle of Anglesey County Council’s (“the Council’s”) input, left her feeling unsupported when in care and as a care leaver. Ms X said that the Council did not provide a meaningful care plan and that she did not have a relevant pathway plan. She also said that she was not supported to access education. The assessment found that the stage 2 independent investigation (“II”) carried out in respect of the complaint, had been reasonable. Accordingly, and due to the difficulties posed by the passage of time since the events occurred, it would not be proportionate for the Ombudsman to investigate the complaint. However, given the service failure identified by the II and the complainant’s time and trouble in pursuing the complaint, the Council agreed to apologise to the complainant and pay her £250 within 1 month. It agreed to provide appropriate reimbursement and/or action any application for funding for the complainant within 1 month of evidence being supplied of her course. It also agreed to offer to set up a meeting to discuss the II report’s findings within 1 month and another meeting at a later date as suggested in the II.

Ms X complained about the manner in which the Council had responded to her complaints about the lack of parking enforcement near where she lived. Whilst the Council had responded to the complaint, albeit its written response had been delayed, the Ombudsman found that there were aspects of the complaint which had not been responded to as fully as they could have been. The Council therefore agreed to provide, within 3 weeks, a further written response to Ms X detailing: • The enforcement visits undertaken. • Intended ongoing enforcement visits. • What to do in future if a parking contravention was witnessed and how this would be responded to by the Council.