PSOW Individual Decisions

Ms C complained that Monmouthshire County Council declined to investigate her complaint about a care home’s decision to prevent her from visiting her mother, in what transpired to be the final days of her mother’s life. The Ombudsman decided that because the Council funded the placement it should have responded to Ms C’s complaint, and considered the rights of both Ms C and her late mother. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to offer Ms C an apology and acknowledge her complaint within 1 week, and to provide a formal response in line with its complaints procedure.

Ms A complained that Monmouthshire County Council failed to respond to a complaint she raised concerning a 4 year road closure due to a collapsed wall. The Ombudsman found that the Council missed the formal complaint which caused additional frustration and uncertainty for Ms A. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought the Council’s agreement to write to Ms A within one week to apologise for missing the formal complaint. It also agreed to issue its complaint response within four weeks.

Mrs A complained about the action taken by Monmouthshire County Council regarding her child’s additional learning needs provision. She raised concerns about the processes followed, including that the Council had delayed taking responsibility for her child’s individual development plan (“IDP”). Mrs A also raised concerns about the communication received from the Council and the way it handled her complaint. In addition, Mrs A complained about the Council’s management of education otherwise than at school (“EOTAS”) provision for her child. The Ombudsman’s assessment found that the Council had provided Mrs A with a response to her complaint, within the expected timeframes. However, it had not provided a full response, including an explanation and apology for the delay in agreeing to take responsibility for the IDP. The Ombudsman found that Mrs A’s complaint about EOTAS provision was premature for an investigation by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to provide an explanation and apology for the delay to take responsibility for the IDP. It agreed to provide a full response to Mrs A’s complaint about the correspondence provided when it agreed responsibility for the IDP. It also agreed to provide a full response to the concerns raised by Mrs A about the Council’s decisions, action and communication concerning EOTAS provision. The Council agreed to complete these actions within 4 weeks.

It was alleged by a fellow councillor of Abergavenny Town Council (“the Council”), that the Former Member had failed to observe the Code of Conduct for Members of Local Authorities in Wales (“the Code”).  This arose from concerns that he was being investigated, and was subsequently prosecuted, by the Police for the alleged harassment (without violence) of a female minor.  These events did not occur when the Former Member was acting as a councillor, but in the Former Member’s private life. We decided it was appropriate to investigate whether the Member had conducted himself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing his office as councillor, or his council into disrepute, contrary to paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Code. We gathered information from: the Police; Monmouthshire County Council; the Clerk; and we gathered press articles which reported on the trial and the comments made by the Judge.  The Former Member was acquitted at trial.  The Judge made clear however that the Former Member’s behaviour was not appropriate. Before arranging an interview with the Former Member about the matter, we found that the Former Member had ceased to be a member of the Council, and of a community council where he was also a member, because he had not attended council meetings for a period of 6 months.  In addition, it was clear that the Member was suffering with health concerns. We considered carefully the appropriateness of continuing with our investigation, applying our public interest test.  We decided in all the particular circumstances of the case, that it was no longer proportionate and in the public interest to continue with our investigation, when he is no longer a member. It was right that the complainant had brought the serious concerns to us however, and we explained to the Former Member that should he return to local politics in the future, and should similar concerns of inappropriate behaviour be referred to us, we may take these discontinued complaint matter

Mr A complained that Monmouthshire County Council (“the Council”) did not provide the bespoke pre-planning application advice service that he paid for. He said that processes were not followed, did not provide the services listed and his correspondence was not responded to, which resulted in delays. The Ombudsman found that in September and October 2023 the Council did not respond to Mr A’s repeated correspondence, and it did not meet the response times stated in its policy for pre-planning application advice. This maladministration caused inconvenience and frustration. The Council acknowledged this and apologised to Mr A in its response to his formal complaint. In addition, the Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to offer Mr A, a £350 redress payment, which was the fee paid for the pre-planning application advice service.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that a Member (“the Member”) of Monmouthshire County Council (“the Council”) had breached the Code of Conduct (“the Code”). It was alleged that the Member breached the Code during a scrutiny committee meeting by using words which intimated that the Complainant had lied in a video submission to the Committee. The Ombudsman determined that investigation was appropriate and that the following paragraphs of the Code should be considered: 4(b) – You must show respect and consideration for others. Information was obtained from the Council, including relevant minutes and correspondence. Witness evidence was obtained and the Member was interviewed. The investigation found that the comments made by the Member were political in nature as they were acting in their capacity as a Cabinet Member. The Member had felt it necessary to defend a statement within the video relating to a councillor colleague who was not present at the meeting and that they were careful to avoid directly calling the Complainant a liar.

The Ombudsman received a self-referred complaint from a member of Monmouthshire County Council (“the Council”).  The referral explained that the Member had failed to observe the Code of Conduct (“the Code”) for members of the Council by disclosing potentially sensitive or restricted information during a Council meeting. The Ombudsman determined that investigation was appropriate and that the following paragraphs of the Code were considered: 5(a) – [members] must not 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 conduct [themselves]in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing their office or authority into disrepute. Information was obtained from the Council, the Member and relevant witnesses. The Ombudsman was satisfied that the Member’s actions in referring to the information without express consent or authorisation to do so and the resulting publicity surrounding his actions were suggestive of breaches of the paragraphs of the Code considered. However, when determining the outcome of this investigation the Ombudsman considered that further action, by way of referral to a Standards Committee or the Adjudication Panel for Wales, was not required in the public interest.  Public interest factors taken into consideration included the self-reflection, remorse and acceptance of the potential breaches by the Member.  It was also noted that the Member took swift action in recognition of the disclosure which appears to have been based on an ill-judged assumption that the information was in the public domain at the time. Under Section 64(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 2000, the Ombudsman decided that no action needed to be taken in respect of the matters investigated.

Mr R complained that Monmouthshire County Council failed to respond to a complaint he raised about a planning application. The Ombudsman found that the Council did not log a formal complaint as it deemed the concerns to be ongoing casework. It failed to inform Mr R of how it was dealing with the issues raised. This caused additional frustration for Mr R. The Ombudsman decided to settlement the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to write to Mr R, within 1 week, to apologise and confirm that it has formally logged the complaint at Stage 2. It also agreed to conclude its investigation within 4 weeks.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that a Member (“the Member”) of Llantilio Pertholey Community Council (“the Council”) had breached the Code (“the Code of Conduct”).  The Complainant alleged that he personally witnessed the Member threaten to punch a fellow Councillor over an argument about the use of a local car park during a full meeting of the Council.  Our finding, under section 69 of the Local Government Act 2000, was that our report on our investigation be referred to the Monitoring Officer of Monmouthshire County Council, for consideration by the Council’s Standards Committee. The Committee found that the Member had failed to comply with the Code of Conduct.  The Committee determined that it was appropriate to censure the Member in respect of the breaches found.  Additionally, the Committee made training recommendations. The  Committee’s decision is available here https://democracy.monmouthshire.gov.uk/documents/g6067/Decisions%2028th-Aug-2024%2009.30%20Standards%20Committee.pdf?T=2

Mr A and his brother complained that the Council did not provide them with a timely response to their complaint and that their voices were not heard. They also complained that the Council did not provide them with a follow-up Stage 2 complaint response, given they were dissatisfied with the Council’s initial complaint response. Contact was made with the Council who confirmed that a Stage 2 response was not provided because the complainants had not requested a Stage 2 investigation. Mr A and his brother’s complaint was settled on the basis that the Council agreed to contact Mr A and his brother to start a Stage 2 investigation.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that a member (“the Member”) of Monmouthshire County Council (“the Council”) may have breached the Code of Conduct by the comments the Member made in a public Council meeting about a missing person.  It was alleged that the comments were insensitive to the missing person’s family. The Ombudsman’s investigation considered whether the Member’s conduct may have breached paragraphs 4(b) and 6(1)(a) of the Code of Conduct.  Information was obtained from the Council.  Witnesses, including the complainant, were interviewed.  The Member was interviewed.  Information was obtained from the Police. The Ombudsman’s investigation found that the Member had been asked for help by a constituent, who was also related to the missing person.  The Police did not share any information with the Member about the missing person.  The Ombudsman found that the Member’s explanation that he was acting on behalf of his constituent in making the comments appeared reasonable.  However, the Ombudsman found that the Member should have been mindful of the sensitive and upsetting nature of the matter.  The complainant found the Member’s comments upsetting and distressing to hear and the Ombudsman noted that the comments were made in a full Council public meeting.  She considered that the public nature of the comments and references to the missing person could be considered as disrespectful to the family of the person who was missing.  The Ombudsman found that discussing such a sensitive and upsetting matter as part of Council business may have failed to show respect and consideration to the complainant and accordingly, were in breach of paragraph 4(b) of the Code. The Member said that he was representing his constituent in making the comments and that his comments were made as part of a political point.  This meant that careful consideration of the enhanced protection councillors have, which permits the use of language in political debates which might, in non-politi

Ms G complained that Monmouthshire County Council was failing to take enforcement action against her neighbour and said it had not responded to a complaint she had submitted in February 2022. The Ombudsman found that although the Council had been dealing with the matter as an enforcement case, it had failed to respond formally to the complaint. She said that this caused confusion and frustration for Ms G. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to apologise to Ms G for failing to respond to her complaint and to provide her with a complaint response within 4 weeks.

Mr X complained that Monmouthshire County Council had failed to resolve aspects of his complaint relating to the use of an unsuitable road by constriction traffic. He further complained about breaches, out of hours operations and deliveries, and concerns about inadequate road signs. The Ombudsman decided that the Council failed to provide Mr X with an update following its documented actions, which caused frustration to Mr X and led him to contact the Ombudsman. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to issue a further complaint response that would provide Mr X with an update in respect of its unannounced site visits, its assurance that it will continue to monitor the operation and deliveries, and an update on the status of the road signage following the documented site visits. The Council agreed that it would action this within 2 weeks.

Mr D complained that Monmouthshire County Council had failed to provide a complaint response to his correspondence about the maintenance of a public lane. The Ombudsman decided that the Council had wrongly determined that the complaint should not receive a response at Stage 2 of its complaints procedure. She said that this caused frustration for Mr D. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to apologise to Mr D and provide a full and final Stage 2 complaint response to Mr D within 6 weeks.

Mr X complained that the Council failed to carry out a thorough investigation into his complaint. He said that the evidence he supplied was not considered and the report was not reviewed before issue. The Ombudsman found that the report addressed the complaint and reached evidenced conclusions. However, there were some omissions and typographical errors which suggested it may not have been thoroughly proofread before issue. The Council agreed to issue a complete report within 20 working days and to ensure that all future investigation reports would be proofread before issue.

Failed to respond to complaint concerning its failure to correctly advise terms of accessing the COVID-19 grant system