PSOW Individual Decisions

The Ombudsman received a complaint that a Member (“the Member”) of Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council (“the Council”) had breached the Code of Conduct (“the Code”). It was alleged that the Member failed to declare a personal and prejudicial interest during Council meetings held on 27 February and 8 March 2023, during agenda items relating to the Council’s budget and decisions about funding for schools.  It was alleged that the Member should have declared an interest in these meetings as the decisions being made may have impacted on her employment.  It was also alleged that the Member failed to declare her employment on her register of interests. The matter was initially dealt with under the Council’s Local Resolution Protocol (“LRP”).  LRPs are informal and there is no statutory basis for them.  They are intended to deal with low level and trivial complaints between members.  As this was a complaint relating to a failure to disclose interests, the Ombudsman considered that it was not appropriate for consideration under the Council’s LRP and should not have been put before the Standards Committee in the manner it was. The Ombudsman therefore investigated the complaint and reached her own finding on this matter, in accordance with the powers granted to her under the Local Government Act 2000.  Information was obtained from the Council, including relevant minutes of meetings and reports.  The complainant was interviewed as part of the investigation and information was obtained from the Member’s employer. The Ombudsman’s investigation found that the Member was the Council’s Cabinet Member with responsibility for Education.  The Member had recorded her employment on her register of interest, in compliance with the Code.  The Member’s employment was within the field of Education and involved co-ordinating agency supply positions across several areas, including Merthyr Tydfil.  The Member did not declare a personal or prejudicial interest during the Council meetings hel

Mrs A complained that she was dissatisfied with Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council’s complaint handling. The Ombudsman decided that although the Council had acknowledged Mrs A’s complaint, it had not provided a formal response. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to apologise to Mrs A and to provide a response within 20 working days.

Mrs B complained that Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council failed to provide her with a copy of its stage two response. The Ombudsman found that there had been a failure by the Council to share the outcome of the stage two with the complainant, she said this caused frustration and inconvenience for Mrs B. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to apologise to Mrs B and provide her with a copy of its stage two response, which includes answers to her outstanding queries, within 3 weeks.

We investigated a complaint from Mrs A that the Council did not implement the recommendation made by a Stage 2 Independent Investigator in relation to the payment of a special guardianship allowance (“SGO allowance”), and that its decision to do so was unreasonable. The recommendation was that the Council should pay Mrs A and her husband, Mr A, an amount equating to the sum they would have been paid had a special guardianship allowance been provided since the date of their grandson, B’s, arrival with them. The Ombudsman found that the decision not to implement the Stage 2 Independent Investigator’s recommendation was unreasonable. There was a failure by the Council to take account of relevant facts and clearly document its rationale for arriving at its decision not to follow the Stage 2 recommendation. The Council’s decision to refuse financial support on the basis that only looked after children (“LAC” – a child is looked after by a local authority if a court has granted a care order to place a child in care, or a council’s children’s services department has cared for the child for more than 24 hours) were eligible for consideration for financial support was flawed. The Council also failed to meet its obligations under relevant special guardianship regulations despite an identified financial shortfall following assessment and a decision. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr and Mrs A for the identified failings, calculate the amount of SGO allowance Mr and Mrs A would have been paid from the date the SGO was granted to the date of a goodwill gesture, and pay Mr and Mrs A the amount of financial redress once the calculation was agreed with the Ombudsman. In addition, the Council agreed to carry out an audit of other non “Looked After” children who lived with special guardians from 2015 to identify if financial support was declined because the child was not a LAC and carry out a fresh assessment of these cases. The Council agreed to share the outcome of the audit wi

Mrs C complained that Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council failed to undertake a SEN assessment of her daughter in a timely manner, which affected her access to education. The Ombudsman found that the Council had taken longer than it should have to assess Mrs C’s daughter, that there was a lack of clear communication and the Council had failed to apologise for these failures. This resulted in Mrs C and her daughter feeling worried and uncertain, which she said affected their mental health and made the whole family feel stressed. The Ombudsman contacted the Council and in resolution of Mrs C’s complaint it agreed to, within 20 working days, provide an apology for the delay in responding to Mrs C’s complaint, apologise for the delay in undertaking a SEN assessment, acknowledge the delays in the SEN assessment affected her daughter’s access to education and highlight areas of improvement to prevent a reoccurrence.

The Ombudsman received a complaint from an Officer (“the Complainant”) of Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council (“the Council”), that a Member of the Council had failed to observe the Code of Conduct for Members. It was alleged that during the recent election campaign the Member had removed a political leaflet from a member of the public’s letterbox, replaced it with his own leaflet, and taken the removed item away. The investigation considered whether the Member’s alleged conduct brought the Member and the Council into disrepute. The Ombudsman obtained information from the Council’s Monitoring Officer, including video footage of the incident. The Council confirmed that whilst the matter had been reported to the Electoral Commission and the Police, it had been established that the matter was not an electoral or Royal Mail offence and both bodies had declined to take any further action. 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.

Mr X complained about the assessment of and provision for his mother’s social care needs following discharge from hospital and respite care. He also complained about the way in which the Council had assessed his mother’s finances in relation to her liability for care costs. The Ombudsman found that Mr X’s complaints about his mother’s care needs had not yet been investigated by the Council under the statutory Social Services complaints procedure and that the complaint about the financial assessment was inextricably linked to those complaints. The Ombudsman asked the Council to, within 20 working days, conform to Mr X that it would investigate his complaints about his mother’s care needs in accordance with the applicable timescales and, while doing so, to put on hold its request for reimbursement of care costs. The Ombudsman also asked the Council to, within 20 working days of completing the investigation, confirm to Mr X its final position regarding liability for the care costs. The Council agreed to do so and the Ombudsman did not investigate.

Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his complaint concerning Council tax liability. He said that it had not been considered under the Council’s formal complaints policy. The Ombudsman found that the Council had not considered the complaint under its complaints policy. He sought and gained the Council’s agreement to do so and to respond to Mr X accordingly.

Blue Badge : Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council Report Date 28/04/2021 Case Against Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council Subject Blue Badge Case Reference Number 202005508 Outcome Early resolution