PSOW Individual Decisions

Mr B complained that Newport City Council failed to respond to his complaint about money being debited from his wife’s account. The Ombudsman found that whilst the Council had responded to Mr B, it had failed to log a formal complaint. She said that this caused frustration and uncertainty to Mr B. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to write to Mr B with an apology for the oversight and issue a complaint response within 2 weeks.

Complaint about the action taken by the Council about provision of school transport and social care services for her children. She also raised concerns that the Council had not agreed to investigate her complaints. ER agreed for the Council to: investigate Mrs A’s complaint about the decisions made by the Council regarding school transport provision for her children and about ongoing delays with the provision of social care services. It agreed to provide a full response to Mrs A, outlining action taken by the Council in line with relevant policies. The Council agreed to confirm to Mrs A the current options available for support with transport and the current status of any options for social care support available for both children. The Council agreed to complete these actions within 4 weeks.

Mr A complained that Newport City Council did not appropriately address his complaint in relation to a communication failure, where staff of the vulnerable adult services were directing the public to use a callback system which cannot connect the caller back to them. The Ombudsman found that the Council mischaracterised Mr A’s complaint by deeming it to fall under the category of matters not considered a complaint, meaning that he was not provided with an appropriate written response which addressed his concerns. The Ombudsman accepted that this caused frustration and unnecessary delay to Mr A and decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to write to Mr A within 10 working days and offer an apology for mischaracterising his complaint, which has led to a delay in his concerns being addressed. The Council also agreed to write a follow up letter to Mr A within 20 working days, outlining what actions will be taken to address the communication problems raised and what process will be used going forward to ensure service users can easily connect to the relevant officer.

Mr M complained that Newport City Council had failed to respond to the numerous complaints he raised. The Ombudsman decided that the Council had failed to provide Mr M with a response. She said this had caused frustration and uncertainty for 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 and provide him with an explanation for not addressing his concerns. The Council also agreed to provide Mr M with a redress payment of £100 and to issue a complaint response by 24 April 2025.

Mrs A complained about noise emanating from a neighbouring heat pump. She complained about Newport City Council’s (“the Council”) decision not to treat the matter as a statutory noise nuisance. She also complained that the Council failed to follow relevant procedures for dealing with low frequency noise complaints. The Ombudsman concluded that statutory nuisance could only be determined through the actions taken and investigations carried out by the Council. However, the Ombudsman took account of Mrs A’s concerns about the date/time that Council officers visited the property to monitor the noise, and the limitations of measuring low frequency sounds using the noise app. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement that it would install noise monitoring equipment in November 2024 and the equipment would remain in situ for 10 days.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that a member (“the Member”) of Newport City Council (“the Council”) had breached the Code of Conduct (“the Code”). It was alleged that the Member made a complaint about the Complainant (“the Complainant”) to his employer; that the Member used his “Councillor” status in submitting the complaint and, by doing so, the Complainant felt the Member abused his position. The Ombudsman’s investigation considered information obtained from the Council, the Complainant’s employer (“the Employer”), the Complainant and the Member. The Ombudsman found that whilst the Member had used his title of “Cllr” in submitting his complaint, the Member’s status as a councillor would have been clear from him having to document why he was choosing to make the complaint. The Complainant made comments about the Member in a public arena which were provocative and personally offensive to the Member. The Complainant made serious allegations about the Member which were personal and had the potential to be damaging for him. It was understandable that the Member perceived them as an attempt by the Complainant to defame him. The Ombudsman considered that the Member had a right to challenge and try to defend himself against such comments. The Employer said that no weight was given to the Member’s role when it investigated his complaint. Given that the substance of his complaint focused on the Complainant’s comments about him, in the context of his role as an elected member, it would have been evident that he was a councillor, even if the title had not been used. In these circumstances, the Ombudsman considered that it was not unreasonable for the Member to sign off his email with his “Cllr” title. The Ombudsman found that there was no evidence of any failure to comply with the Code under Section 69(4)(a) of the Local Government Act 2000 in respect of the matters investigated.

Mr X complained that the Council had not considered all relevant factors before granting an Exclusive Rights of Burial application for a family grave plot to one member of the family. Mr X further complained that the Council had also misinformed Mr and Mrs X about the situation, not explained its decision properly and overlooked the wishes of other family members. The Ombudsman noted the upsetting circumstances of the situation. However, the investigation found no maladministration on the part of the Council in respect of the information that it had given to the family, which was correct at the time. The decision to grant the Exclusive Rights of Burial application was a discretionary one that the Council was entitled to take, and its decision was not unreasonable on the evidence provided to it. The Ombudsman noted that the Council could have explained more clearly (and using less formal legal language) to the family why it was unable to refuse the application. However, it would not be proportionate for the Ombudsman to continue an investigation on this point alone.

Mr S complained that Newport City Council had failed to respond to a complaint he raised in March 2024. The Ombudsman found that the Council had received a complaint but it had failed it as it was received with incorrect contact details. She also found that the Council had been liaising with Mr S but failed to acknowledge and action the reference to a complaint. The Ombudsman said this caused additional frustration and uncertainty and she decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to log a formal complaint. To write to Mr S, within 1 week, confirming the complaint had been logged and to include its apology with an explanation of what went wrong.

Mrs G complained that Newport City Council had failed to issue a refund it had promised to make to her following an issue with its Cemeteries Department. The Ombudsman found that Mrs G had been promised a refund more than 9 months ago but it had not been issued to her. Mrs G had chased the Council for the refund. The Ombudsman said this caused frustration to Mrs G and decided to settle the complaint. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to apologise to Mrs G for the delay in issuing the refund, to issue the refund to her, and to offer her a further redress payment of £50 within 4 weeks. The Council confirmed that the refund had been made following the Ombudsman’s approach to it.

Mr X complained that Newport Council had refused to allow him to escalate his social services complaint to the second stage of the statutory complaints procedure. The Ombudsman decided that the Council had wrongly determined that all of Mr X’s complaint fell outside the statutory procedure. She said that this caused delays and frustration for Mr X. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to apologise to Mr X, acknowledge his complaint, set out the issues to be investigated, and agree to proceed with a stage 2 complaint investigation within 5 working days.

Mr G complained about the terminology used by Newport City Council in its complaint response letter. The Ombudsman found that the Council used terminology that a member of the public may not understand or be familiar with. This caused additional frustration and confusion to Mr G. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to write to Mr G explaining the terminology within one week.

Mr N complained about the about the way the Council had handled his concerns regarding a grave for which his brother-in-law sought, and was granted, the Exclusive Right of Burial. Mr N said that this decision should be reversed because the Council had known that it was against the wishes of the rest of his family. Mr N said that communication with the Council had broken down and he was experiencing difficulties receiving a response to his concerns. The Ombudsman found that a Stage 1 response to Mr N’s complaint was issued promptly, but that it had failed to address the crux of his complaint, which was whether it was reasonable to grant the Exclusive Right of Burial in the context of the ongoing family dispute. We also found a Stage 2 complaint should have been initiated, given Mr N’s continued correspondence expressing his dissatisfaction with the complaint response and apparent delays in responding to his subsequent correspondence. The Council agreed to apologise Mr N for failing to address his original concern, escalate his complaint to Stage 2, and to provide a further response to his concerns within a reasonable timeframe. It also agreed to offer Mr N £250 in recognition of his time and trouble in pursuing the complaint and to open a Stage 2 investigation, in line with the Council’s complaint procedure.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that a member (“the Member”) of Newport City Council (“the Council”) breached the Code of Conduct (“the Code”) when he approached the complainant on her driveway and accused her of having a camera in her house directed towards his house.  It was alleged that the Member relied upon his position as a councillor to persuade the complainant to let him into her house to check if there was a camera present. The Ombudsman’s investigation considered whether the Member’s conduct may have breached paragraphs 4(b), 4(c) and 6(1)(a) of the Code.  Information was obtained from the Council.  Witnesses, including the complainant, were interviewed.  The Member was interviewed. The Ombudsman’s investigation found that the complainant and Member’s version of events differed.  The Member said that he had not referenced his role as a councillor.  The Ombudsman found that there was no independent witness evidence, or any other type of evidence, available to account for what happened during the exchange and accordingly, there was not sufficient evidence to suggest that the Member had referenced his role as a councillor.  As a result, given that there was not sufficient evidence that the Member was acting in his capacity as a councillor during the exchange, most of the provisions of the Code (including the requirement to show respect and consideration to others) were not engaged.  The only relevant provision of the Code which applies at all times, including when the Member was acting in a private capacity, was the obligation not to act in a way which could reasonably be regarded as having brought disrepute upon the Council and/or the office of councillor.  Whilst the complainant reported the incident to the Police, the Police did not speak with the Member about the interaction and took no action in relation to the matter.  In view of this, the Ombudsman found that there was no evidence that the Member had brought his office as councillor or his Council i

Ms A complained that she was unhappy with Newport City Council’s decision not to backdate funding she believed she was entitled to as a Guardian. Ms A said that over a period of 7 years, the Council had not kept in touch with her/the child in her care, from a wellbeing perspective. The Ombudsman decided that the Council had correctly informed Ms A of her responsibility as a Guardian to report any changes in her financial circumstances/request a financial assessment. However the Council had not had an opportunity to respond to Ms A’s complaint about lack of contact. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to acknowledge Ms A’s complaint within 5 working days and agree to provide a response.

Mr B complained because he was unhappy that he is only allowed to contact Newport City Council (“the Council”) between 10:00 and 12:00 on a Thursday, a time that he said his social worker does not work. He also complained that the Council had sent him a letter that was not in large print format. The Ombudsman found no maladministration in respect of Mr B’s permitted contact, and he does not have a social worker or access to social care. The Council advised that he can make a self-referral for assessment of this provision. However, the Ombudsman was concerned that the Council’s complaints department had sent a letter that was not in large print, as required by Mr B. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to provide Mr B with an apology and to place a marker on all Council systems to ensure all correspondence to Mr B is sent in large print. The Council agreed to complete these actions within 10 working days.

Ms A complained that she was unhappy with Newport City Council’s response to her complaint about the process and decisions regarding her mother’s best interests. Ms A was concerned about communication, risk assessments and aspects of her mother’s care provided by the nursing home where she resides. The Ombudsman decided that the Council had wrongly determined that Ms A’s complaint should be dealt with as a Corporate complaint. She said that this caused delays and frustration for Ms A. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to apologise to Ms A, and accept her complaint under Stage 2 of the Social Services Complaints Procedure (Wales) Regulations 2014 within 10 working days.

Mr W complained that Newport City Council refused to accept his complaint about the introduction of fees for residents to use the community tip. The Ombudsman found that the Council had incorrectly refused to accept his complaint. She said that this caused frustration and uncertainty to Mr W. She decided to settle this complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to apologise to Mr W, accept his complaint and issue a complaint response within 3 weeks.

Mr L complained that despite the Ombudsman referring his complaint to the Council in October 2022, he had yet to receive a response. The Ombudsman decided that the Council had failed to act inline with its statutory complaints procedure and said that this caused frustration to Mr L. As an alternative to an investigation, the Ombudsman sought the Council’s agreement to fully investigate the concerns that were referred to them in October 2022, and to provide a written response within 30 working days.

Mr S complained that Newport City Council failed to acknowledge or provide a complaint response about a planning matter. The Ombudsman decided that whilst the Council had initially responded to Mr S, it had failed to acknowledge or respond to his subsequent complaint. She said that this caused frustration and uncertainty to Mr S. She decided to settle the complainant without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to apologise to Mr S, provide an explanation for this failure, and issue a complaint response within 4 weeks.

Miss X complained about the care provided to her brother Mr Y, by the Council. The investigation considered whether the Council failed to adhere to the recommendations of an independent assessment carried out in September 2019, and whether it failed to listen to Mr Y in relation to his day care placement and failed to make appropriate provisions once it was clear Mr Y was unhappy about attending the Daycentre. The Ombudsman found that the Council followed due process in respect of the independent assessment and its decision not to follow the recommendations was appropriate and the Council was entitled to take this decision. This complaint was not upheld. The Ombudsman found that the Council took appropriate action in exploring Mr Y’s day care placement and the options available and that the Council took into account Mr Y’s views, including referring Mr Y to an advocate so that he could express his views. This complaint was not upheld.

Ms X complained that the Council advised her that she would need to pay £204 for a replacement cemetery plot certificate which she disputes receiving. The Ombudsman contacted the Council, and it agreed to provide a replacement certificate free of charge within six working days. The Ombudsman considered this to be a sufficient resolution as an alternative to investigating the complaint.

Mr X complained about how he had been treated by, and the information he received from, the Council, which related to property bids. The Council had failed to recognise that his complaint directly related to the services it provided when it had been of the view that it fell outside of the corporate complaints process, as it related to shortlisting. To resolve this complaint, the Ombudsman sought and obtained the Council’s agreement to consider this matter formally under its corporate complaints process and respond to Mr X’s concerns, within one month.

Newport City Council completed work to repair a sink hole in the road outside Mr D’s home. When concrete was being poured into the hole staff failed to notice that part of the pipes had lifted and concrete went into the pipes. Mr D complained that the further repair work, that involved digging up his driveway, was completed to a poor standard. The render to the outside of his property was also damaged by the workmen and they had completed a patch repair which Mr D complained was of a poor standard. The Council has made Mr D a financial offer for the repair of his driveway which he has confirmed is satisfactory. The Council’s insurance team are currently neogitating a settlement with Mr D in relation to the accidental damage to the render of his property. If Mr D is unhappy with the outcome of this negotiation he is able to pursue a claim against the Council through a court of law. The Council has agreed to within 1 month: a) Write to Mr D and apologise for the avoidable inconvenience caused to him by below standard repair work to his property and the accidental damage to his render. b) Pay Mr D £750 financial redress for the avoidable inconvenience caused to him and his wife due to the poor repair work and distress caused in trying to resolve his concerns.

Ms A complained that the Council had failed to investigate a noise nuisance complaint in accordance with its obligations under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The Ombudsman identified issues with the handling of Ms A’s complaint and the Council’s subsequent formal complaint responses. She decided to settle the complaint. She sought and obtained the Council’s agreement to apologise for the shortcomings, offer a site visit, ensure that any future similar complaints were investigated and confirm the action taken to prevent future similar issues from occurring.

Mr X complained that despite putting 2 complaints forward to the Council, and numerous calls, he had not received a response. The Ombudsman was concerned that Mr X had yet to receive a response to his concerns and contacted the Council. As an alternative to an investigation, the Council to provide Mr X with a formal response to his complaint, along with an apology letter for the delay in responding. The Ombudsman accepted this as a resolution of Mr X’s complaint.