PSOW Individual Decisions

Miss A & Ms A complained about Pembrokeshire County Council’s decision to grant planning permission to a neighbouring property. When the Ombudsman looked at the complaint, she could see that the Council had considered some of Miss A & Ms A’s concerns at the first stage of its complaints procedure but had advised that it could not investigate further as the matters had been considered under other processes. Although Miss A and Ms A had further concerns these were not raised as formal complaints. The Ombudsman decided that the Council should review the concerns that were excluded from the complaints procedure and be given the opportunity to respond to the newer concerns. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to contact Miss A & Ms A within 4 weeks to agree the scope of their complaint, then within a further 4 weeks provide a response and explain clearly if any concerns are outside the scope of the complaints procedure.

Mrs A complained because she was unhappy with Pembrokeshire County Council’s (‘the Council’) failure to move her from her current pitch on a caravan site, despite it being deemed a fire hazard. Mrs A said the Council had informed her she would be moved, but it had not happened. The Ombudsman noted that the Council had agreed to move Mrs A but established that Mrs A had been experiencing issues with her current pitch for some time. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to, within 3 months, complete the safe handover for Mrs A to move. The Council also confirmed to the Ombudsman that a successful funding application meant that the new pitch would be concreted as part of Mrs A’s move.

Mr A complained that Pembrokeshire County Council (“the Council”) had failed to investigate and repair damp and mould issues at his home. There are ongoing issues with damp, particularly in the bedroom, where the carpet is wet and there is mould on the wardrobe. Mr A and his wife were having to sleep in the living room as a result. He further complained about the extractor unit in the bathroom. The Ombudsman found that, although the Council had undertaken an independent Stage 2 Investigation, this has not fully resolved things for Mr A. Matters did not appear to have progressed since the Council issued its response on 31 October 2024. Communication appeared to have broken down. This caused unnecessary delays and frustration for Mr A and had negatively affected his health. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to, within 4 weeks, meet with Mr A to identify the list of issues in the property and agree a mutually convenient date to inspect the property. The Council also agreed to, within 6 weeks, provide Mr A with a schedule and timeline of the planned works, setting out the works to be undertaken and when the required works would be completed.

The Ombudsman received a self-referred complaint from a Member (“the Former Member”) of Pembrokeshire County Council (“the Council”) that he had breached the Code of Conduct (“the Code”).  It was alleged that the Former Member had recorded a racist voice note (an audio voice recording of a message) that he then sent to his partner, via the “WhatsApp” instant messaging application.  It was also alleged that the Former Member shared information relating to Council business alongside disrespectful comments about members of the public to his partner, via WhatsApp. At the time of submitting the self-referred complaint, the Former Member was a member of the Council.  He later resigned. The investigation considered whether the Former Member had failed to comply with the following provisions of the Code of Conduct: 4(b) – Members must show respect and consideration for others. 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. The investigation considered information from the Council.  Witness accounts were obtained, and a Digital Evidence Report was obtained from a provider of Digital Forensics and Corporate Forensic Investigations. The Member was also interviewed. The investigation found, on balance, that the Former Member created the voice recording and that he sent it to his partner via WhatsApp.  The content of the voice recording was considered racist.  Evidence of widespread media reporting of the voice recording was considered.  The investigation found that the Former Member’s conduct could reasonably be regarded as disreputable and was capable of seriously undermining public confidence in the Council and the office of memb

Miss K complained about Pembrokeshire County Council (“the Council”) and whether a safeguarding strategy meeting (“the Strategy Meeting”) adequately considered both the concerns that had been raised about the care provided to her grandmother, Mrs L, and the adequacy of the Council’s monitoring of the nursing home (“the Nursing Home”). The Ombudsman’s investigation found that the Strategy Meeting followed appropriate national guidelines and adequately considered the concerns raised about the care provided to Mrs L and the Council’s monitoring of the Nursing Home. Although the allegation considered by the Strategy Meeting was unsubstantiated, some shortcomings were identified, and an appropriate action plan was put in place to address the concerns highlighted. The Ombudsman did not uphold the complaint.

Ms B complained about maladministration by Pembrokeshire County Council (“the Council”) relating to One Planet Development planning permissions. The Ombudsman set out to investigate whether the council had failed to follow the appropriate process leading up to the issuing of an Enforcement Notice (“EN”) to Ms B in relation to permissions on her land on 9 September 2021. It also considered whether the Council failed to properly investigate Ms B’s complaint regarding the process involved in issuing the EN, which meant that a full answer had never been received. In response to the Ombudsman’s investigation, the Council provided information which made it clear that there was no internal policy or process in place in 2021. It also provided other comments relating to challenges with One Planet Development policy monitoring and enforcement. This information had not been disclosed to Ms B as part of the Council’s complaint investigation. In respect of the first matter, the Ombudsman considered that it would not be possible to establish evidence of maladministration where there was no local policy/process in place. In respect of the second complaint point, the Council agreed to offer an apology and to provide the further information to Ms B that it had not disclosed during its complaint investigation. It also agreed to offer Ms B £250 financial redress in relation to its complaint handling. The Ombudsman considered this action to be appropriate. The Ombudsman discontinued the investigation on this basis.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that an individual who was a member (“the Member”) of both Saundersfoot Community Council (“the Community Council”) and Pembrokeshire County Council (“the Council”) may have breached the Code of Conduct.  It was alleged that the Member inappropriately contacted a senior staff member at the County Council to raise concerns about the appointment of an individual as permanent Clerk to the Community Council, on the basis that the individual already worked for the County Council.  Whilst neither the County Council nor Community Council objected to the individual undertaking both roles, it was suggested by the Complainant that the staff member was unhappy about this contact having been made and decided to refuse the Clerk role. Soon after the investigation commenced, we were informed by the Complainant that she wished to withdraw her complaint.  In determining whether it would be in the public interest to continue with the investigation, a number of factors were considered, specifically the complainant’s wishes, that the individual himself had not complained and no concerns had been raised by any relevant staff members at the County Council or the wider public.  While the Member’s actions may have influenced the individual to make the decision to reject the role, they did not result in any direct detriment to him (i.e. his substantive role at the County Council was not negatively impacted).  The decision to reject the Clerk role was one he was entitled to take.  The impact therefore was limited primarily to the inconvenience and cost to the Community Council in undertaking a further recruitment exercise, which, while disruptive, we did not consider to be, in itself, sufficiently detrimental, or in the public interest, to justify the continuation of an investigation. In view of this, I considered that it would not be proportionate or in the public interest to investigate the matter further and it was decided to discontinue the investigati

Mr and Mrs X complained that Pembrokeshire County Council failed to enforce a planning condition on a neighbouring property. The Ombudsman found that there had been delays in the Council’s response to Mr and Mrs X’s complaint, which was primarily due to issues sourcing an investigator to undertake a Stage 2 investigation. The Ombudsman said this caused additional frustration and uncertainty to Mr and Mrs X. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to write to Mr and Mrs X within 2 weeks to provide an apology and explanation for the lack of updates provided and for the delay in appointing an investigator. The Council also agreed to appoint an investigator within 6 weeks to undertake a Stage 2 investigation in line with its complaints procedure and, thereafter, to provide Mr and Mrs X with monthly updates until the Stage 2 is issued.

Mr X complained that Pembrokeshire County Council had failed to communicate with him regarding his complaint to do with repair works at his property. The Ombudsman found that there had been delays in the Council’s response, which was primarily due to issues sourcing an independent Investigator to undertake a stage 2 investigation. The Ombudsman said this caused additional frustration and uncertainty to Mr X. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to write to Mr X within 2 weeks to provide an apology and explanation for the delay in appointing an independent investigator and for his time and trouble in his need to approach the Ombudsman. The Council also agreed to appoint an independent investigator within 6 weeks to undertake a stage 2 investigation in line with its complaints procedure and thereafter provide Mr X with monthly updates until the stage 2 response is issued.

Mr V complained about Pembrokeshire County Council (“the Council”) and how it had undertaken an assessment which he said was not robust and was full of inaccuracies and errors. Mr V was also unhappy at the Council’s attempts at measuring the turning circle of his wheelchair. The Council’s Stage 2 complaint response recommended that it should undertake new assessments but this had not happened by the time Mr V approached the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman proposed a settlement of the complaint. The Council agreed to carry out the following within 1 month: 1. Issue an apology to Mr V for the continued delay in carrying out the recommendations from the Stage 2 report. 2. Undertake a Social Work assessment and Occupational Therapy assessment, and agree support plans, as soon as possible. The 2 assessments will be done separately. 3. Undertake a measurement of Mr V’s wheelchair turning circle as soon as possible. 4. Make a payment to Mr V of £150 for the time and trouble of having to bring his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Ms A complained about inadequacies in the support that Social Services had provided to her children. She was also dissatisfied with the initial complaint response she had received from the Council. The Ombudsman considered that the Council’s response was not sufficiently robust. The Council agreed to appoint an external independent Stage 2 investigator to investigate Ms A’s concerns.

Mr A complained that when he requested to change the date of his direct debit for Council Tax, Pembrokeshire County Council did not inform him that his monthly payments would increase. The Ombudsman decided that the Council should have informed Mr A of the increase in payments. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to inform all customers of the potential increase in instalments when they request a payment date change, publish the information in the relevant section on its website, and to offer Mr A an apology and explanation of the action taken to improve the service, within 20 working days.

Mr A complained that Pembrokeshire County Council had not fixed the issues he reported relating to external drains, and mould inside his property. Mr A said he first reported the issues in 2020. The Ombudsman found that although there was evidence that the Council had recently responded to the issues, they were unresolved. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement within 10 working days to provide a complaint response to Mr A. To include a timeframe for the progression and completion of the remaining works and repairs relating to the drains and the mould.

Mrs X complained that Pembrokeshire County Council failed to respond to a complaint raised in September 2023. The Ombudsman found that the Council’s delay in responding was due to sourcing an independent investigator to undertake a Stage 2 investigation. She found this caused additional frustration and uncertainty to Mrs X. The Council confirmed that it is in the process of recruiting an independent investigator, the Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to issue its Stage 2 complaint response within 8 weeks.

Mrs A complained that despite Pembrokeshire County Council telling her that it would investigate the damp in her property during the summer of 2022, it had not. Further, Mrs A said that the Council had not responded to her emails about the issue. The Ombudsman found that in its letter to Mrs A, dated 15 June 2022, it advised that it would be carrying out an inspection of her property during the summer [of 2022] and recording moisture readings to establish if there was genuine damp within the property, rather than mildew and mould caused by condensation. There was no evidence that this inspection had taken place. She also found that the Council had failed to respond to a complaint submitted by Mrs A on 3 September, in accordance with its complaints policy. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to, within 10 working days, provide a written apology to Mrs A for the failure to undertake an inspection of her property and the failure to provide a response to her complaint, and provide Mrs A with a written response to her complaint. Within 28 days, undertake a full inspection of Mrs A’s property to record moisture readings, with a view to identifying the cause of the damp. Within 10 working days of the inspection, provide Mrs A with the findings of the inspection, together with a proposed plan of works to address the cause of the damp, as necessary.

Mr B complained about outstanding work that was due to be completed in his property by the Council. Mr B said that he had repeatedly raised the issue but had not received a date by which the Council would complete the work. The Ombudsman contacted the Council and it was agreed that the Council would: • Provide the complainant with a deadline date by which the outstanding works (redecoration of a kitchen wall) would be completed. The Council contacted the complainant and a date for the works to be completed was agreed.

Mr A complained that Pembrokeshire County Council failed to provide a response to his complaint about an ongoing damp issue in his property. The Ombudsman found that whilst the Council had initially logged a complaint, it had not provided a substantive response to Mr A’s complaint. It had subsequently informed Mr A that his concerns could not be dealt with under its complaints procedure as it was an insurance matter, however, there was a delay in the Council informing Mr A of this. Furthermore, the Ombudsman found that the Council had not provided Mr A with an apology for the delay or for incorrectly logging his concerns as a complaint. She said that this caused frustration and uncertainty to Mr A. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to write to Mr A to provide the necessary apologies and explanations for the oversights and provide an update on his insurance claim within 2 weeks.

Mrs R complained that Pembrokeshire County Council failed to provide a response to her complaint about housing repairs. The Ombudsman found that there had been a delay in the Council acknowledging Mrs R’s complaint and it had failed to provide regular and meaningful updates. Furthermore, it had not issued a complaint response. She said that this caused frustration and uncertainty to Mrs R. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to apologise and provide explanations for the failures identified, offer her £75 redress and issue a complaint response within 4 weeks.

Miss M complained that Pembrokeshire County Council failed to action housing repairs that she had reported, and further complained that she had not received a complaint response. The Ombudsman decided that the Council had failed to provide regular and meaningful updates and had not issued a complaint response. She said that this caused frustration and uncertainty to Miss M. 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 Miss M for the delay and failure to provide regular and meaningful updates, and contact Miss M to arrange a visit for the defects to be viewed within one week. The Council also agreed to offer Miss M redress of £50 and issue a complaint response within 4 weeks.

Miss A complained about the care provided to her late grandmother whilst she was in a nursing home, funded by the Council, between September and December 2022. Miss A raised safeguarding concerns with the home, the social worker and the Council in relation to hygiene, supervision and record-keeping. Miss A said that the Council did not provide adequate support. Miss A was dissatisfied with the outcome of the safeguarding review and the information that was considered at the strategy meeting. Miss A further complained about the Council’s handling of her complaint. The Ombudsman found that there was inadequate communication regarding the safeguarding and complaints processes and a delay in complaints handling. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to, within 10 working days, identify and appoint an Independent Investigator to undertake a Stage 2 complaint investigation to consider all complaints and to provide Ms A with a written apology for not providing clear information on the next steps after the safeguarding investigation had concluded, and for the delays in appointing an investigator at the informal complaint stage and sending out a complaint response.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that a Member (“the Member”) of Haverfordwest Town Council (“the Council”) had breached the Code of Conduct for Members of the Council.  It was alleged that the Member called the Clerk “a liar” on 2 occasions during a meeting of the Council’s Management, Estates and Strategy (“MES”) Committee on 5 April 2022. The investigation considered whether the Member failed to comply with the following provisions of the Code of Conduct: 4 (b) – To show respect and consideration for others. 4 (c) – Not use bullying behaviour or harass any person. 6(1)(a) – Not conduct himself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing his office or authority into disrepute. The Ombudsman’s investigation obtained copies of minutes and other documents from the Council and obtained witness accounts from 6 witnesses who were present at relevant meetings.  It also considered comments made by the Member. The Member accepted that he had called the Clerk “a liar” on 2 occasions during the MES meeting.  The Ombudsman therefore considered that the Member’s conduct was indicative of a breach of paragraphs 4(b) and 4(c) of the Code of Conduct.  The Ombudsman did not consider that this incident, in isolation, was suggestive of a breach of paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Code of Conduct. The report on the investigation was referred to the Monitoring Officer of Pembrokeshire County Council for consideration by its Standards Committee. The Standards Committee concluded that the Member had breached paragraphs 4(b), 4(c) and 6(1)(a) of the Code of Conduct.  Accordingly, the Standards Committee decided that the Member should be censured, the maximum available sanction as the Member resigned from office shortly before the hearing

Mrs S complained that Pembrokeshire County Council failed to deal with her complaint and felt that her concerns were not being resolved. She further complained that despite promises to inspect her fence in October 2022,the Council had not yet actioned this. The Ombudsman concluded that the Council failed to act on Mrs S’s concerns within a timely manner and said this caused frustration to Mrs S. As an alternative to an investigation, the Ombudsman sought and gained the Councils agreement to apologise to Mrs S in writing for the delays and allocate a contractor to conduct the work on the fence within 30working days.

Mrs Q complained about excessive delays by the Council in carrying out repairs, maintenance, an investigation into the electricity supply, erecting a fence and collecting waste at her property. The Ombudsman found that the Council had taken appropriate action to get to the bottom of Mrs Q’s electricity issues. Electricity usage monitoring equipment was installed in August 2019 which indicated that there was nothing wrong with the electricity supply, and the high costs likely due to excessive usage. Despite more concerns raised by Mrs Q, the Council appropriately installed monitoring equipment again in July 2021, with the same outcome. With regard to repairs and maintenance and the erection of a fence, the Council had offered a sum of money to Mrs Q – the costs of repairs and maintenance were included within the figure. When this offer was eventually rejected, and following the Council’s stage 2 complaint response, the Ombudsman was satisfied that the Council immediately undertook appropriate repairs and works and sought to fulfil its legal obligations. With regard to refuse collection, the Ombudsman was satisfied that, following the Council’s stage 2 complaint response, it had identified that there were delays, apologised to Mrs Q and sought to remedy the situation as soon as possible. The Ombudsman did not uphold the complaint.

Ms G complained to the Ombudsman that Pembrokeshire County Council had not resolved several maintenance issuesin respect of her property, which datedback to when Ms G moved into the property in March 2020. The Ombudsman found that following Ms G raising her complaint with the Council in September 2021, it visited the property in December 2021, but did not provide a written complaint response until April 2022. The response statedthat a total of 37 maintenanceissues would be resolved within 6 weeks. The repairs were not completed. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to provide Ms G with a written apology and to offer a financial redress payment for the sum of £500, in recognition of the delay in completing repairs, the large number of repairs outstanding and the delay in response to the complaint made in September 2021 and to complete all 37 jobs as detailed in the letter to Ms G dated 11 April 2022, within 5 weeks.

Ms X complained that the Council repeatedly missed recycling and waste collections following a change in process of kerbside collection in November 2019. The Ombudsman was concerned to note that despite the complaint being escalated to Stage 2 in September 2021, it had not yet been concluded. The Council therefore agreed to undertake the following action in settlement of this complaint by 28 July 2022: 1. Apologise for the delay in completing its investigation and responding. 2. Make a time and trouble payment of £50 for the inconvenience. 3. Compete the investigation and issue its Stage 2 response.