PSOW Individual Decisions

Mr B complained about whether Neath Port Talbot Council responded appropriately to reports of noise he made regarding a development near his home. The Ombudsman found that, whilst the Council’s investigation into the reports of noise made by Mr B was appropriate, the way the Council communicated with him was not. Mr B’s concerns were not fully addressed, and he was not kept informed of the progress of the investigation into his complaint. These failures amount to maladministration and are an injustice to Mr B, who was frustrated at the perceived lack of action regarding his complaint. This element of Mr B’s complaint was upheld. The Council accepted the Ombudsman’s recommendations. It agreed to apologise to Mr B for the failures of communication identified during the investigation, to remind officers of the necessity to inform complainants of the outcome of investigations and to ensure that the officers that investigated Mr B’s complaint are familiar with the Council’s Complaints Policy.

Mr A complained about Neath Port Talbot Council’s handling of his complaint regarding its failure to issue an amended Individual Development Plan (“IDP”) for his son, within the statutory timelines. The Ombudsman decided that whilst the Council had issued a Stage 2 response, it was brief and did not sufficiently address the complaints raised, or consider the remedies sought. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement that within 2 weeks it would contact Mr A to agree the outstanding elements of his complaint and clarify the remedies sought; and within 1 month of contact it would respond to the complaint.

Mrs A complained regarding the construction of a garage near her property. The Ombudsman found that the Council had not fully responded to the concerns raised and said this caused uncertainty and frustration for Mrs A. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to, within 2 weeks, write to the complainant to clarify the point Mrs A has raised and provide information on how to report a new planning breach following the completion of the build.

Miss A complained that Neath Port Talbot Council failed to escalate or respond to her concerns about its refusal to assign help following a referral for a care coordination package. The Ombudsman found that whilst the Council had responded to Miss A it had failed to log her concerns as a complaint. She said that this caused frustration and uncertainty to Miss A. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to write to Miss A with an apology for the failure to log her concerns as a complaint and issue a Stage 1 complaint response within 3 weeks.

Ms A complained about her experience with a social worker that she has dealt with since 2023. Ms A’s complaint was not considered by the Council due to the matters being out of time and ongoing legal proceedings taking place. However, the Ombudsman found that the Council did not give a final response to Ms A’s last correspondence about this complaint to explain to her why the complaint could not be considered. This lack of clarification caused Ms A confusion and frustration. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to, within 4 weeks, provide an apology and explanation letter for not responding to Miss A’s last correspondence.

Mr C complained that Neath Port Talbot Council (‘the Council’) had not properly considered the impact on local residents when it approved an application for planning permission and had failed to respond to representations made by Mr C’s elected representative. The Ombudsman decided that following an initial response to the elected representative, the Council had not provided the updates that it said it would provide. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to provide a response to the concerns raised by Mr C’s elected representative within 2 weeks.

Mrs A complained that Neath Port Talbot Council (‘the Council’) failed to determine an application for a mobile phone mast outside her home within the required period, resulting in the developer obtaining permission by default. She complained that the mast was visually intrusive and would affect the value of her home. The Council accepted that it has failed to determine the application and that, had it done so properly, it would have refused permission, although that decision might have been reversed upon appeal. The Ombudsman concluded that it was not possible to say definitively that the mast would not have gained permission and so could not recommend redress in respect of diminution of property value. However, the Ombudsman did conclude that the uncertainty with which Mrs A had been left, constituted an injustice to her. The Ombudsman sought and secured the Council’s agreement to pay Mrs A £500, within 4 weeks, in recognition of the uncertainty with which she has been left as to whether the mast might have been refused permission and so might not have been sited outside her home. The Ombudsman considered this to represent an appropriate outcome and did not investigate the complaint further.

Mr A complained about Neath Port Talbot Council’s handling of his late father’s council tax account. Mr A said that the Council’s correspondence contained unnecessary aggressive language and lacked compassion. Mr A said that the Council acknowledged where improvements could be made but refused to make any meaningful changes. The Ombudsman decided that although the Council had informed Mr A it would look into the issues raised, it was unclear what action it would take, and it did not provide timescales. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement within 2 months to review the wording of the documents issued to the personal representative of a deceased taxpayer, review its current system to allow for the production of newly worded reminder letters to be issued in line with the recovery process, and to provide Mr A with a written summary of the outcome of the review.

Mr A complained about the adequacy of the Council’s response in relation to concerns that he had raised about illegal burning at the Traveller site managed by the Council. He also raised concerns about the Council’s handling of his complaint and set out the reasons why he was unhappy with some of the Council’s responses. The Ombudsman was critical of the Council’s shortcomings in its complaint handling and the lack of effective communication with Mr A. The Ombudsman was also of the view that a detailed and timely complaint response might have prevented Mr A having to contact this office for further clarification As part of an early resolution the Council agreed to write to Mr A and apologise again for the shortcomings in communications and complaint handling. It would also address why fires taking place beyond the boundary of the Travellers’ site are outside the scope of the Council’s contractual agreement. The Council also agreed to review its complaint handling and communication in Mr A’s case, as part of wider learning, and share any lessons learned with this office.

Mr A complained that Neath Port Talbot Council had incorrectly issued a Hazard Awareness Notice in respect of a property for which he is the landlord and about the way his complaints to the Council were handled. The Ombudsman decided that there was no maladministration in the issuing of the Hazard Awareness Notice but there had been unreasonable delays in responding to Mr A’s complaints. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to write to Mr A within 2 weeks to apologise for its handling of his complaints.

Ms A complained about the suitability of the transport arrangements for her son, who has additional learning needs, to attend college. As part of her complaint Ms A expressed dissatisfaction with the Council’s appeals process. The Ombudsman identified that the Council’s written communication to parents/carers about the appeal process was not as good as it could be. As part of the early resolution the Council agreed that it would review the appeal documentation and develop a procedure document for parents/carers.

Mr S complained that Neath Port Talbot Council failed to respond to a complaint concerning a serious incident which happened in 2012. The Ombudsman found there had been ongoing investigations, including criminal court proceedings, which prevented the Council considering the complaint under its formal complaint process at an earlier stage. The proceedings concluded in June 2024 and the Council started its formal complaint process. The complaint had been further delayed as the Council had to liaise with the Courts and police. This caused additional uncertainty and frustration for Mr S. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to aim to conclude its investigation within 8 weeks. If it is not possible to conclude by then, the Council also agreed to write to Mr S with a meaningful explanation.

Mrs Z had complained about the care and support provided to her late brother, Mr X, by Neath Port Talbot Council (“the First Council”) and Carmarthenshire County Council (“the Second Council”). Mrs Z complained to the Ombudsman that the independent Stage 2 investigation arranged by the Second Council, on behalf of the First and Second Councils, did not fully address her concerns. Specifically, she complained that it did not sufficiently consider her complaint that the First and Second Councils did not rigorously investigate reports that Mr X was being isolated by his partner from family, community and services. She also complained that the outcome of a safeguarding strategy meeting held following the death of Mr X, chaired by the Second Council, was flawed as it should have considered witness statements prepared by hospital staff. The Ombudsman found that both the First and Second Councils took appropriate action in regard to concerns that Mr X was being isolated by his partner from family, community and services. The investigation also found that appropriate action was taken by the Second Council in its role in chairing the safeguarding strategy meeting. Appropriate information was requested and considered. These complaints were not upheld.

Mrs Z had complained about the care and support provided to her late brother, Mr X, by Neath Port Talbot Council (“the First Council”) and Carmarthenshire County Council (“the Second Council”). Mrs Z complained to the Ombudsman that the independent Stage 2 investigation arranged by the Second Council, on behalf of the First and Second Councils, did not fully address her concerns. Specifically, she complained that it did not sufficiently consider her complaint that the First and Second Councils did not rigorously investigate reports that Mr X was being isolated by his partner from family, community and services. She also complained that the outcome of a safeguarding strategy meeting held following the death of Mr X, chaired by the Second Council, was flawed as it should have considered witness statements prepared by hospital staff. The Ombudsman found that both the First and Second Councils took appropriate action in regard to concerns that Mr X was being isolated by his partner from family, community and services. The investigation also found that appropriate action was taken by the Second Council in its role in chairing the safeguarding strategy meeting. Appropriate information was requested and considered. These complaints were not upheld.

Mr X complained that Neath Port Talbot Council had failed to provide him with a formal response to a complaint he submitted in February 2022. The Ombudsman decided that there had been delays and oversights, and the Council had failed to provide a formal complaint response in line with its internal complaint process. She said this caused frustration and uncertainty to Mr X. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to issue a Stage 2 complaint response within 2 weeks, which should also offer an apology for the delay.

Mr V complained that when the Council’s commissioned care for his father, Mr C, at a residential Care Home between 27 August 2021 and 7 January 2022, in relation to the replacement of Mr C’s broken glasses and Mr C’s access to a COVID-19 booster vaccine. Mr V also complained that 2 safeguarding referrals – in relation to the delay with the COVID-19 booster vaccine and Mr C’s fall on 9 December 2021 – were appropriately managed by the Council. The Ombudsman found that the Council was only aware of the issues around Mr C’s broken glasses and his COVID-19 booster from 9 December, at which time it acted promptly to contact the Care Home and request appropriate action to resolve them. It was reasonable for the Council to rely on the Care Home to provide day-to-day oversight of Mr C’s care and facilitate routine access to health services, and to expect the Care Home to be taking the action it said it was. The Ombudsman therefore did not uphold these complaints. The Ombudsman found that the first safeguarding referral (into Mr C’s fall) was raised and considered appropriately; it was closed because there was no evidence of harm or neglect. However, the Council should have spoken to the family directly when considering the second referral (into the booster vaccine) and doing so would probably have resulted in further enquiries being made. This element of the complaint was therefore upheld in relation to the second referral because not all the relevant information had been gathered. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr V and have a discussion with him to understand his concerns before re-considering the second referral, and to share learning from the outcome of this investigation with relevant staff.

Miss P complained that Neath Port Talbot Council failed to respond to her complaint about its refusal to inspect the damp and mould conditions of her privately rented property to determine whether it could take action. The Ombudsman found that the Council had failed to issue a complaint response. She said that this caused frustration to Miss P. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to write to Miss P with an apology for the failure and to issue a Stage 1 complaint response within 2 weeks.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that a member (“the Member”) of Neath Port Talbot Council (“the Council”) had breached the Code of Conduct.  It was alleged that the Member was arrested by the Police on suspicion of driving his car whilst being under the influence of alcohol. Our finding, under section 69 of the Local Government Act 2000, was that our report on our investigation be referred to the Deputy Monitoring Officer of the Council for consideration by the local Standards Committee. The Standards Committee found that the Member had failed to comply with the Code of Conduct.  Its sanction was to suspend the Member for a period of 4 calendar months.

Mr A complained about Neath Port Talbot Council’s decision not to undertake an investigation of concerns he had shared about his son. Mr A also complained about complaints handling, as the Council had failed to escalate his complaint to Stage 2 of the social services complaints process. Mr A said that the Council had wrongly interpreted the law. The Ombudsman found that there was some delay in the Council dealing with the complaint. Prior to the Stage 1 complaint response being issued, Mr A requested matters be escalated to Stage 2 and for there to be an independent investigation of his complaint. This was not actioned by the Council and Mr A was not provided with a substantive response to those requests. The Council provided a final response in April 2023, which appeared conflicting and confusing. It was unclear on what basis the Council had refused to undertake the requested Stage 2 independent investigation. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to, within 20 working days, liaise with Mr A to establish what matters remain outstanding, provide him with a further response to those matters and/or an explanation as to why they cannot be considered and provide an apology for the failure to respond to the substantive matters contained in emails sent to the Council in December 2022. The Ombudsman’s view was that the above action was reasonable to settle Mr A’s complaint.

Mr M complained that Neath Port Talbot Council failed to provide an adequate response to his safety concerns about a new school. The Ombudsman decided that whilst the Council had issued a Stage 1 complaint response, it had not always responded to Mr M’s emails. She said that this caused frustration and uncertainty to Mr M. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to apologise to Mr M, provide an explanation for the delay and failure to respond to his emails, and issue a complaint response by 4 July. Furthermore, the Council is to provide Mr M with a copy of the safety report as soon as it is available.

Mr T complained about Neath Port Talbot Council’s handling of his complaint about road vibrations. The Ombudsman decided that the Council had failed to provide regular and meaningful updates and had not issued a Stage 2 complaint response. She said that his caused frustration and uncertainty to Mr T. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to provide an apology and explanation to Mr T for the delay, offer him redress of £125 and issue a complaint response within 4 weeks.

Ms D complained that Neath Port Talbot Council failed to provide a complaint response about the lack of support provided to her daughter. The Ombudsman decided that whilst the Council had responded to Ms D, it had failed to log her concerns as a complaint. She said that this caused frustration and uncertainty to Ms D. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to apologise to Ms D, provide an explanation for this failure, and issue a Stage 2 complaint response within 3 months.

Mr M complained that Neath Port Talbot Council failed to implement a breach of a planning and environmental Notice thereby breaching its statutory obligation. The Ombudsman found that the Council overlooked Mr M’s complaint which was issued via its website. The Ombudsman agreed with the Council that it would prioritise the matter and issue an apology and a response within 4 weeks.

Ms X complained that the Council had failed to respond to the social services complaint she had submitted in January 2022. In considering the complaint, the Ombudsman noted that the Council had sent an initial response but had failed to deal with Ms X’s concerns in accordance with the social services complaints process and had instead closed the case. In settlement of the complaint she asked the Council to undertake the following actions: a) To contact Ms X within 15 working days to recommence the statutory complaints process. b) To apologise to Ms X for closing her complaint. c) To offer Ms X redress in the sum of £125 for her time and trouble in pursuing her concerns with this office, and for the resulting delay in pursuing her concerns under the statutory complaints process.

Mr A complained about care and support provided to his son by Neath Port Talbot Council’s Social Services Department and an associated agency. Mr A said that he was dissatisfied with the Council’s response to his complaint, and in particular, its failure to notify the associated agency of his complaint. The Ombudsman found that although Mr A had submitted a complaint to the Council, he had not submitted a complaint to the local authority with responsibility for oversight of complaints about the associated agency. However, she also found that the response from the Council had not informed Mr A about his right to escalate his complaint nor did it inform him about the correct process for submitting a complaint about the associated agency. The Ombudsman concluded that Mr A could not have been expected to be aware of the jurisdictional setup of the associated agency. The Ombudsman contacted the Council and sought its agreement to confirm to Mr A within 10 working days that it would progress his complaint. Following this, the Council agreed to liaise with the local authority with oversight of complaints about the associated agency to provide a co-ordinated and meaningful response to Mr A, addressing all of the issues he raised.