PSOW Individual Decisions

Mr A complained that he had not received a Stage 2 complaint response from Powys County Council, within the defined timescales. The Ombudsman found that a Stage 2 response had not been issued to Mr A within the timescales. The Ombudsman said this left Mr A with unanswered questions regarding his complaint to the Council. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to within 4 weeks, issue the Stage 2 complaint response, including an explanation of and apology for the delay.

Mr A complained that Powys County Council failed to respond to the complaint regarding the length of time to hold the multi-agency meeting. The Ombudsman found that, while the Council had provided explanations regarding other concerns, it has not addressed the matter of the delays in holding the multi-agency meeting. The Ombudsman said this caused uncertainty and frustration for Mr A and decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to, within 2 weeks, undertake a review of the Section 5 process and provide an outcome to the complainant.

Mr X complained that Powys County Council had failed to respond to a complaint he had escalated to it in December 2024 regarding a license for a cycleway and footpath. The Ombudsman found that the Council had failed to properly log Mr X’s complaint through its corporate complaints procedure, despite Mr X chasing a response throughout 2025, and there had been a significant delay in responding to his complaint. The Ombudsman said this caused frustration and uncertainty to Mr X and decided to settle the complaint without a formal investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to apologise for failing to properly log Mr X’s complaint, provide an explanation for this failure, to issue a full and final Stage 2 complaint response and to offer a £100 redress payment to Mr X within 2 weeks.

Mr A complained that the Council’s Social Services department failed to provide his family with appropriate support since they moved to its area in 2018. He said that the Council had identified a need for residential respite care for his disabled son, B, but had failed to provide this. He said that the Council’s failings meant that the family were left unsupported even as they had to endure the mental health deterioration and eventual suicide of their eldest daughter. He also complained that the Council’s responses to his complaint and a complaint made by his former partner Ms C were inadequate and delayed at every stage. Having considered the complaint, the Ombudsman was concerned that there had been a failure over 6 years to meet B’s identified need for residential respite. While some of the factors contributing to this were to an extent beyond the Council’s control, the Ombudsman was concerned that there had been a lack of impetus or urgency to arrange residential respite. The Ombudsman was also concerned that but for complaint handling failings, Mr A and Ms C’s complaints could have been addressed up to a year earlier. In response to the Ombudsman’s concerns, the Council agreed to apologise for, and acknowledge, the failures to arrange suitable residential respite over a period of 6 years and to investigate broader concerns about a lack of support for B in a timely manner. It agreed to make financial redress payments totalling £1,000 to Mr A and Ms C in respect of complaint handling failures and the lost opportunity to receive support which may have significantly improved their wellbeing as individuals and their capacity to support their children. The Council also agreed to carry out a review of its residential respite provision and to review its complaint handling process, taking into account specific concerns raised by the Ombudsman.

Mr & Mrs A complained about how Powys County Council (“the Council”) handled safeguarding concerns involving their daughter. The Council declined to investigate as the complaint fell outside of the relevant timescales laid out in the Social Services Complaints Procedure (Wales) 2014 (“the Procedure”). When the Ombudsman looked at the complaint, she recognised that whilst the Council were correct in its assertion about the timescales in the Procedure, that some of Mr & Mrs A’s concerns were within the relevant timescales for consideration. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to within 2 weeks, contact Mr & Mrs A to establish the scope of the complaint investigation, then within 4 weeks of agreement to respond to the elements of the complaint which are in time for the Council’s consideration.

Mr X complained that Powys County Council failed to act in relation to the damp and mould. The Ombudsman found that the Council failed to log Mr X’s complaint. She said this caused uncertainty and frustration for Mr X. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to, within 3 weeks, offer an apology and explanation for the oversight, issue a complaint response and provide a timeline of the planned woks.

Mr A complained about repairs undertaken at his home. He was required to move out of the property during the works, which took longer than anticipated. Upon returning there was a gas leak, which resulted in him moving out for a second time. Mr A was dissatisfied with the Council’s complaint response and sought reimbursement for costs incurred. The Ombudsman found that Mr A had not received an adequate complaint response and was inconvenienced by the organisation’s actions. The Council had not adequately investigated the concerns in relation to the gas leak. Whilst the Council had offered reimbursement of rent, council tax and materials, it had not considered whether any other costs, including utility bills, should be reimbursed. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Council agreed to, within 4 weeks, consider Mr A’s concerns about the gas leak and his request that other bills be reimbursed and provide him with a further complaint response.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that a Member (“the Member”) of Welshpool Town Council (“the Town Council”) and Powys County Council (“the County Council) had breached the Code of Conduct. It was alleged that, when attending a County Council event, the Member had spoken in an insulting manner about the Complainant, who was an employee of the Town Council, referring to her as lazy and saying that she was unable to carry out her job properly. The Ombudsman determined that investigation was appropriate and that paragraphs 4(b) and 6(1)(a) of the Code of Conduct (“the Code”) should be considered. The investigation found that, whilst the Member denied making the comments, she could not explain why the person she had allegedly made them to (an independent witness), thought she had, other than suggesting a potential misunderstanding because of her hearing issues. The investigation found that this was not sufficient to explain what the witness alleged, and that it was more likely than not that the Member had made a comment/s that could reasonably be interpreted as critical of the Complainant, even if not to the extent alleged. Given the lack of substantive evidence, the absence of any wider detrimental impact (notwithstanding the Complainant’s understandable distress when she was told of the comments), and the Member’s right to freedom of expression, it was not considered proportionate or in the public interest to take further action. However the Member has been reminded of the importance of maintaining a respectful relationship between members and officers, and how comments can be interpreted.

Mr C complained that he had faced persistent problems with Powys County Council’s assisted recycling waste collections, which had caused him stress and inconvenience. The Ombudsman decided that although the Council were taking reasonable steps to ensure collections were carried out as intended, and that new technology it planned to introduce was likely to improve the service further, Mr C had lost confidence in the Council’s service. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to proactively contact Mr C on the next recycling collection day, the collection day in 6 weeks’ time, and the collection day following the introduction of the in-cab technology system, to check that the collection had gone as planned and address any concerns.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that a Member (“the Member”) of Powys County Council (“the Council”) had breached the Code of Conduct (“the Code”). It was alleged that the Member made discriminatory comments directed towards the Complainant in a video that was published online. The investigation considered the following paragraphs of the Code: 4(a) – members must carry out their duties and responsibilities with due regard to the principle that there should be equality of opportunity for all people, regardless of their gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, age or religion. 4(b) – members must show respect and consideration for others. 4(c) – members must not use bullying behaviour or harass any person. 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 and the Complainant. The Member also provided a written response to the allegation. The investigation found that the Member’s explanation for the comments made in the video was plausible and genuine and that the comments had been misinterpreted. There was no evidence that the Member made discriminatory comments and there was no evidence of a breach of the Code.

The Ombudsman received 2 complaints that a member (“the Member”) of Welshpool Town Council (“the Town Council”) had breached the Code of Conduct. It was alleged by another Member of the Town Council (the first complaint) that the Member had behaved in a way which was bullying and disrespectful towards others and failed to demonstrate positive leadership, which reflected badly on him and the Town Council. It was alleged by the Former Clerk to the Town Council (the second complaint) that the Member had been suspended from his position with the Football Association of Wales (“FAW”) for inappropriate behaviour towards a female, and that ensuing publicity about the matter had brought his office as a member, and the Town Council, into disrepute. The investigations considered whether the Member failed to comply with the following provisions of the Code of Conduct: 4(b) – You must show respect and consideration for others. 4(c) – You must not use bullying behaviour or harass any person. 6(1)(a) – You must not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing your office or authority into disrepute. With regard to the first complaint, the Ombudsman concluded that the Member’s conduct fell short of the standards expected of elected members and was suggestive of a breach of paragraphs 4(b), 4(c) and 6(1)(a) of the Code of Conduct. With regard to the second complaint, the Ombudsman concluded that the Member’s engagement with the press and the surrounding publicity, were likely to have brought his office as a member and his authority into disrepute and therefore suggestive of a breach of paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Code of Conduct. Our finding, under section 69 of the Local Government Act 2000, was that our report on our investigations be referred to the Monitoring Officer of Powys County Council for consideration by its Standards Committee. The Standards Committee found that the Member had failed to comply with the paragraphs 4(b), 4(c) and 6(1)(a) of the

Miss B complained that Powys County Council had failed to appropriately deal with her Social Services complaint. The Ombudsman found that there was a delay in the Council’s handling of Miss B’s complaint which caused frustration to Miss B. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without a formal investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to, within 2 weeks, apologise to Miss B and explain the reasons for the delay in dealing her complaint, to escalate her complaint to Stage 2 of the Council’s Social Services complaints procedure, and to appoint an Independent Investigator.

Mrs A complained about the lack of response to her concerns regarding Continuing Healthcare (CHC) eligibility for her mother, Mrs B, from Powys County Council. The Ombudsman said that the Council had not formally responded to Mrs A’s concerns. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to within 10 weeks, apologise to Mrs B for the lack of response to her complaint, contact her to set out the scope of her complaint and investigate and provide a formal response under its complaint’s procedure.

Ms A complained that Powys County Council had not concluded its deliberations on outstanding matters relating to an area of land next to her property that was deemed to be a highway, as outlined in its Stage 2 complaint response from November 2023. The Ombudsman decided that Council had not concluded deliberations or updated Ms A in an appropriate timeframe.  She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement that within 2 weeks it would send a written apology to Ms A for the length of time she had been waiting for the action to be taken and within 8 weeks it would conclude deliberations on the outstanding matters and notify the respective parties, as outlined in the Stage 2 complaint response

Mr Z complained that Powys County Council did not escalate his Social Services complaint to Stage 2 when he asked them to. The Ombudsman found that the Council’s actions did not comply with the requirements set out in The Social Services Complaints Procedure (Wales) Regulations 2014. The Ombudsman found that this caused frustration and inconvenience to Mr Z and decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to, within 1 week, provide Mr Z with an apology, information on how the complaint will be investigated, information about the Independent Investigator, a formal written record of the complaint and an invitation to comment on its accuracy.

Mrs A complained about incorrect information in documents prepared by Powys County Council (“the Council”). The Ombudsman decided that the investigation report contained information which contradicted or could not be verified by the information contained in the records. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to within 28 days, add a note to the complaints file to record the points which Mrs A disputed in the report and note the corrections and reassess the final point of her complaint to decide whether the point is upheld or not upheld.

Ms Q complained that Powys County Council failed to respond to a complaint raised about Social Services. The Ombudsman found the Council had not processed Ms Q’s complaint as expected, under its complaint process. This caused frustration and uncertainty for Ms Q. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to log a complaint under Stage 2 of its Social Services complaint process and to write to Ms Q, within 2 weeks, with its apology and explain what went wrong with the way it handled her complaint.

Mr X complained that Powys County Council had failed to respond to his social services complaint regarding the care of his child who is in residential care. The Ombudsman decided that there had been delays, oversights, and confusion. 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 written apology to Mr X (within 2 weeks) which should also include an explanation, and assurances that it will proceed to investigate the complaint at Stage 2 of its internal complaint process.

Mr X complained that Powys County Council failed to provide a response to his complaint regarding outstanding housing repairs and concerns with his heating costs. The Ombudsman decided that there had been delays and oversights with the complaint response. 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 its stage 2 response within 3 weeks, which should also include an apology for the delay, and a redress payment of £100.

Mr L complained about works that Powys County Council undertook to the road outside his home following the removal of a flood defence wall on private property. Mr L said the works had not resolved the problem of water running down the road and his home. He said that he did not feel the Council had taken his concerns seriously and questioned the Council’s handling of his Stage 2 complaint because the response was issued by someone with whom he had already had contact about these issues. The Ombudsman found that the Council’s Stage 1 complaint response did not address all the issues Mr L had raised, or explain which matters were not being addressed and why. Additionally, the Stage 2 response was very brief; it did not address the issues that were excluded from the Stage 1 and it was not signed by a suitable officer. The Ombudsman agreed that, if Mr L had been in contact with him about these matters already, the person who issued the Stage 2 response could be perceived as lacking the independence necessary to consider the complaint at that stage. The Council agreed to apologise for failing to address all the issues raised in Mr L’s Stage 1 complaint and to provide a further Stage 2 response from a senior officer who was independent from the department to address the outstanding matters from his complaint. It agreed to do this within 4 weeks.

Miss C said she was a disabled and vulnerable tenant. She complained that the Council had delayed carrying out housing repairs in relation to 2 properties, and it had failed to safeguard and find her safe accommodation. Regarding the first property, the Ombudsman noted Miss C had exceeded the timescales for making her complaint to the office and she had moved out of the property 11 months prior. Consequently, this element of the complaint was out of time. In any event, there would be no benefit to Miss C even if the Ombudsman were able to ask the Council to carry out any identifiable repairs to the first property. With regards to the second property, the Ombudsman found there was disagreement as to the repair issues which remained outstanding. As an alternative to an investigation, the Council agreed to undertake the following to resolve the complaint within 10 working days. • The Council agreed to contact Miss C to arrange a convenient time and date when officers could attend the property to identify and agree any remedial work. • It also agreed to provide Miss C with information about how to make a claim to the Council’s insurers for the loss of personal items and financial loss incurred while at the properties.

Ms A complained that Powys County Council refused to escalate her social services complaint to the second stage of the statutory complaints procedure. The Ombudsman decided that the Council had wrongly determined that the complaint fell outside the statutory procedure, and it had provided Ms A with inaccurate information. The Ombudsman 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, offer her redress of £250, and proceed with a stage 2 complaint investigation. Further, to ensure relevant staff are reminded of complainants’ rights and to review the accuracy of information provided to complainants, within 10 working days.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that a Member (“the Member”) of Powys County Council (“the Council”) breached the Code of Conduct.  The behaviour complained about took place when the Member had been elected to both the Council and Bannau Brycheiniog National Park Authority (“the Authority”).  The investigation was extended to include consideration of this role on the Authority, the Member subsequently resigned from this position. Our finding, under section 69 of the Local Government Act 2000, was that our report on our investigation be referred to the respective Standards Committees of the Council and the Authority.  Those bodies both elected to refer the matter under relevant regulations to Ceredigion County Council’s Standards Committee, for their consideration.  The Committee found that the Member had failed to comply with the Code of Conduct, in respect of both the Council and the Authority.  The Committee determined that it was appropriate to censure the Member in respect of the breaches found in respect of both the Council and the Authority’s Codes of Conduct. Additionally, the Committee made training recommendations. The Committee’s decision is available here https://powys.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s90124/Pwyllgor%20Safonau%20a%20Moeseg%20-%20Ethics%20and%20Standards%20Committee%20Cyngor%20Sir%20Ceredigion%20County%20Council%20-%20.pdf .

Mr H complained that Powys County Council delayed installing emergency lighting and has not put in place temporary lighting. The Ombudsman found that the Council had failed to provide temporary lighting and had provided Mr H with incorrect information. She said that this caused frustration and uncertainty to Mr H. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to write to Mr H with an apology and explanation for the delay in installing temporary lighting, provide Mr H with a further apology for providing incorrect information and to install temporary lighting within 2 weeks.

Mr B complained to Powys County Council, on behalf of his client, Mr C, about its Social Services and Legal Department, and particularly about its lack of response to correspondence, which hindered the preparation of Mr C’s case in respect of care proceedings. Mr B received 2 complaint responses from the Council, which concluded that his complaints were not upheld. Mr B complained to the Ombudsman about the handling of his complaints, and the accuracy and content of the Council’s responses. The Ombudsman found that Mr B’s challenges to the Council’s complaint response appeared to be valid. An example of this included the Council’s conclusion that it had not failed to respond to his correspondence, when Mr B said he had evidence of some 27 emails which went unanswered. She considered that it would be reasonable for the Council to provide a full response to Mr B’s challenges. In resolution of Mr B’s complaint, the Council agreed to provide him with a further written response which specifically addressed the challenges / comments he raised in his submission to the Ombudsman in respect of the veracity of the 2 Council’s complaint responses. Additionally, the Council agreed to provide a written response to Mr B, addressing matters which had arisen since the provision of its second complaint response.