PSOW Individual Decisions

Mr B complained that Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council refused to escalate his complaint to Stage 2 of its corporate Complaints Procedure. The Ombudsman found that the Council had improperly refused to escalate Mr B’s concerns. 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 failure to escalate his complaint and issue a Stage 2 complaint response within 3 weeks.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that a Member (“the Member”) of Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council (“the Council”) had breached the Code of Conduct in failing to declare a relevant interest. The Member attended a Planning Committee meeting in May 2025 that considered granting a Certificate of Lawful Proposed Use or Development (“CLPUD; a document that confirms proposed use or works does not require planning permission), in relation to a change of use for a building within the area he represented, from a pub (“the Pub”) to a shop.  The Member spoke in favour of the CLPUD being granted and did not declare any interest beforehand. The Member had previously been the Chair of a social club (the Club”) within the same area, but had been replaced as Chair on 6 April.  The Member had updated his entry in the Council’s Register of Interests on 11 April to reflect that he no longer had an interest in the social club. The Complainant said that during the Planning Committee meeting the Member spoke as if he was still the Chair of the Club, and that an individual who had previously acted as the Member’s PA had contacted officers of the club recently, referring to the Member as “still the only officially elected club chairman.”  He said that during the Member’s speech, he spoke of the Club as being in direct competition with the Pub, and said his wife was employed by the Club as the Secretary. The Complainant felt these links constituted a personal and prejudicial interest, so the Member should have declared this and followed the Code in relation to his participation in the meeting. As the Member had provided sufficient evidence that his own interest in the Club had ended, the Ombudsman did not consider this to constitute a personal interest.  However, as the Member’s wife was still employed by the Club (albeit on sickness absence since 6 April and had not been paid), this was considered to be a potential personal interest, although it was unlikely to be significant enou

Mrs X complained that Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council failed to respond to her complaint about the care provided to her late husband. The Ombudsman found that the Council failed to respond to Mrs X complaint letter submitted to it in March 2025. She said this caused uncertainty and frustration for Mrs X. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to, within 3 weeks, apologise to Mrs X for the oversight in not responding to her letter, issue a complaint response and offer £100 redress for the oversight in not responding to her letter and for her time and trouble in making a complaint to the Ombudsman.

Miss Q complained that Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council had failed to provide her with reasonable adjustments and had not responded to the complaint she submitted in October 2024. The Ombudsman found that the Council had recently responded to Miss Q’s complaint but decided that there had been a significant delay by the Council to provide the response. She said this had caused frustration and uncertainty for Miss Q. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to, within 2 weeks, provide Miss Q with a written apology for the delays and offer her a £50 redress payment in recognition of the amount time it had taken to respond to her complaint.

Ms B complained that Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council’s Trading Standards department had initially only sought to recover part of the losses she had incurred from a building company, ignoring the goods and services she had paid for but not received. Ms B also complained that the Council had then taken the wrong approach to recover her losses, resulting in her receiving no compensation. It was found that the Council had amended the amount of compensation being claimed, as a result of Ms B’s concerns. It was also found that the Council’s complaint response had not addressed Ms B’s concern about the approach taken to recover her losses, despite her making a formal complaint about this. The Council agreed to, within 4 weeks, issue Ms B with a further complaint response which will address her complaint about the approach taken to recover her losses. The Ombudsman considered the action agreed was reasonable and closed the complaint on this basis.

Mr X complained that Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council had failed to respond to his complaint regarding an obstructed public right of way and a planning issue. The Ombudsman found that while the Council had responded to Mr X’s complaint it had failed to provide a clear response as to what action can or cannot be taken. She said that this caused 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, within 3 weeks, issue a complaint response confirming what action it has taken, what is currently under consideration, actions it is excluded from taking and who is responsible for the public right of way and planning issue. The Council also agreed to keep Mr X updated at regular intervals as to the progress of various processes and how he can contribute to them.

Mr X complained that Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council incorrectly logged his complaint about the upkeep of an unadopted Council owned highway, as a service request. The Ombudsman concluded that the Council had failed to log and respond to Mr X’s complaint in line with its complaint process. The Ombudsman said this caused uncertainty, frustration, and inconvenience to Mr X. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to apologise for the oversight, delay and inconvenience caused and to issue its complaint response within 3 weeks.

Ms M complained that Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council changed the process of waste collection, from bins to bags. The Ombudsman found that Ms M submitted a complaint via the online feedback form, but the Council dealt with this as a service request. It failed to inform Ms M that it was not being dealt with through the complaints process. This caused frustration to Ms M. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to write to Ms M, within 1 week, to apologise for failing to inform her of how it was dealing with the feedback form and to formally log as a formal complaint.

Mr X complained that Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council had failed to respond to his complaint regarding unsatisfactory enforcement action and unauthorised use of land. The Ombudsman found that whilst the Council had been in contact with Mr X, his concerns were not logged as a formal complaint. 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 within 2 weeks write to Mr X with an apology and explanation for the delay and failure to log his complaint and offer to pay £100 redress for the delay and for his time and trouble in making a complaint to the Ombudsman. The Council also agreed to issues its stage 2 response within 4 weeks.

Mr A complained that Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council had failed to fully respond to the complaint that he made. The Ombudsman found that the Council’s complaint response had not addressed why he had been asked to limit his communications in December 2023. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement, that within 20 working days it will provide a revised Stage 2 complaint response, explaining its justification for requesting that Mr A limits his communications.

Miss X complained that Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council had failed to respond to her complaint submitted to it in December 2023. The Ombudsman decided that the Council had overlooked the complaint. She said this caused delays, frustration and uncertainty to Miss X. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to issue its response, which should include an apology for the delay within 3 weeks.

Mr C complained that Rhondda Cynon Taff County Council failed to repair his blocked gully and did not issue a response to his complaint. The Ombudsman found that whilst the Council had logged service requests it failed to log Mr C’s concerns as a complaint. She said that this caused frustration and uncertainty to Mr C. She decided to settle his complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to write to Mr C with an apology for its failure to log his concerns as a complaint and issue a complaint response within 4 weeks.

Mrs F complained that Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council failed to escalate her complaint to stage two of the social services complaints procedure. The Ombudsman found that there had been a delay by the Council to progress Mrs F’s complaint. She said this caused inconvenience and frustration for Mrs F. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to apologise to Mrs F, pay her redress of £50 for the delay and to appoint an independent investigator within one month.

Mr B complained that Rhondda Cynon Taf County Council had not responded to his complaint about an uneven and broken surface along one of the Council’s cycling and walking routes. The Ombudsman found that while the Council was not responsible for the section of the route complained about it had not informed Mr B of this, or that it had referred the matter to the body responsible. The Ombudsman contacted the Council and in resolution of Mr B’s complaint it agreed to, within 20 working days, write an apology letter for not keeping him updated. The Ombudsman considered this to be an appropriate resolution and did not investigate.

Mr X complained that Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council failed to response to his complaint submitted to it 2 months ago. The Ombudsman decided that there had been a delay and administrative oversight in formally acknowledging receipt of the complaint or providing an update to the complainant. The Ombudsman 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 complaint response within 2 weeks, which should also include an apology and explanation for the oversight in not formally acknowledging receipt of the complaint, and for the lack of update since the complaint was made.

Mr G complained that Rhondda Cynon Taff Borough Council failed to comply with its complaint’s procedure in relation to his concerns about children’s social services. The Ombudsman found that there had been a delay in the Council issuing a Stage 1 complaint response. Furthermore, the Council failed to respond to all of Mr G’s emails. She said that this caused frustration and uncertainty to Mr G. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to provide the necessary apologies and explanations for the oversights and issue a Stage 2 complaint response within 5 weeks.

Ms F complained that Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council failed to respond to her concerns about a planning application that had been made. The Ombudsman decided that whilst the Council had responded to a vast amount of correspondence from Ms F, it had failed to provide a formal complaint response. She said that this caused frustration and uncertainty to Ms F. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to apologise and provide an explanation to Ms F for the failure to issue a complaint response and issue a Stage 2 complaint response within 4 weeks.

Mr S complained that Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council had failed to respond to the complaint he submitted to it in September 2022. The Ombudsman concluded that although the Council did respond verbally, it had not provided procedural information within a formal written response in line with its statutory complaint’s procedure. She said this caused confusion and frustration to Mr S. As an alternative to an investigation, the Ombudsman sought and gained the Councils agreement to provide Mr S with a written explanation of how it investigated his concerns at the time, and an apology for not writing to him sooner. The Council agreed to complete the above within 30 working days.

Mrs S complained that Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council failed to support her, and her husband’s housing needs which resulted in her husband having to seek accommodation in his vehicle. The Ombudsman concluded that the Council failed to act in accordance with its statutory complaints procedure and failed to provide its procedure with her. She 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 for not providing her with sufficient information on its complaint’s procedure, issue a stage 2 response, and remind its housing team of the model complaints procedure. It was agreed that the Council would action this within 30 working days

Ms Q complained that the Council refused to tell her about the health and whereabouts of her late partner, Mr X, from February 2021 onwards, and failed to inform her about his death until several months after the event. She also complained that the Council failed to arrange for the administration of his estate, leaving her to attend to matters. The Ombudsman considered that Ms Q’s desire to receive information about her partner engaged her right to a private and family life under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act. The Ombudsman was satisfied that it was not unreasonable in the circumstances for the Council to withhold information about Mr X from Ms Q in the weeks leading up to his death. However, after Mr X died, the Council showed a lack of urgency in establishing that information about his death could be passed to Ms Q. This resulted in a 5-month delay in telling Ms Q that Mr X had died, which was likely to have caused her avoidable additional distress. The Ombudsman was also concerned that, in the circumstances, the Council should have provided appropriate advice and support to Ms Q in relation to the settlement of Mr X’s estate following his death, in as far as it affected her. As a result, Ms Q was left to resolve matters on her own without support, which put her to avoidable time and trouble. In the interests of resolving the complaint, the Council agreed to apologise to Ms Q for the failings identified and to make a payment of £750 to her for the injustice and avoidable time and trouble caused to her. The Council also agreed to contact Ms Q to offer her appropriate support and advice (itself, or through an expedited referral to an appropriate external agency) with any ongoing concerns relating to Mr X’s estate.

Mr and Mrs X complained that the Council did not respond to their complaint regarding Children’s Services “committing criminal offences toward them”. Whilst noting that it was not a matter for the Ombudsman to determine whether a criminal offence had been committed, the Ombudsman decided that the Council should provide Mr and Mrs X with a substantive written response to fully address their complaint. It should also provide Mr and Mrs X with an explanation for the poor communication, and a sympathetic apology for the significant delay in responding to their complaint. The Ombudsman considered this to be an appropriate resolution to the complaint instead of conducting an investigation.

Mr X complained that the Council had failed to investigatehis complaints in line with the statutory Social Services Complaints Procedure. The Ombudsman found that, whilst therewere elements of the complaint that had previously been properly investigated,there were more recent elements which the Council had not progressed to stage 2of the complaints process in accordance with the regulations. The Council therefore agreed, should Mr X still wish this, to progress any outstanding complaints, which had not already been considered, to be investigated at stage 2 of the Social Services Complaints Process in line with the statutory timescales.

Miss A complained that Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council (“the Council”) had granted her a parking permit on application but had then revoked it. Her property fronted 2 roads – Y Street and Z Road. The revocation had caused her upset and distress. She wanted the permit reinstated. In undertaking enquiries, the Council confirmed that it had issued the permit in error. Miss A’s property did not hold a registered postal address for Y Street, being the relevant road included within a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) governing parking permits. The property’s official address was for Z Road. It had refunded Miss Y’s application fee. The Ombudsman did not investigate the complaint as he had no power to reinstate the permit as sought by Miss Y as he cannot change TROs. However, in recognition of the error in granting Miss Y the permit, so raising her expectation that she was entitled to it, the Ombudsman found maladministration. He sought the Council’s agreement to formally apologise to Miss Y for that error (within 20 working days). The complaint was settled on this basis as an alternative to an investigation.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that a Former Member of Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council (“the Council”) and Llantwit Fardre Community Council (“the Community Council”) had breached the Code of Conduct for Members (“the Code”) in using the term “Pikies” during a community WhatsApp group discussion. The Ombudsman investigated whether the Former Member’s conduct may have breached paragraphs 4(a), 4(b) and 6(1)(a) of the Code. During the investigation the Member resigned from both the Council and Community Council. The Ombudsman’s investigation found that the community WhatsApp group was comprised of members of a village hall committee and at the time of the exchange the Former Member was not a Council or Community Council representative on the committee or WhatsApp group. The Ombudsman found the Former Member was not acting in his public role during the exchange and therefore paragraphs 4(a) and 4(b) of the Code were not engaged when he made the post in his private capacity, and these provisions of the Code were not engaged when the Former Member made his comment on WhatsApp. The Ombudsman considered that had the Former Member been a Council or Community Council representative, his conduct could be suggestive of a breach of paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Code. However, the Ombudsman was not persuaded there was a sufficient link to the Former Member’s role to suggest the comment would affect the reputation of the Former Member’s office or authority. This being the case, the Ombudsman did not consider that the conduct was suggestive of a breach of paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Code.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that a Former Member of Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council (“the Council”) and Llantwit Fardre Community Council (“the Community Council”) had breached the Code of Conduct for Members (“the Code”) in using the term “Pikies” during a community WhatsApp group discussion. The Ombudsman investigated whether the Former Member’s conduct may have breached paragraphs 4(a), 4(b) and 6(1)(a) of the Code. During the investigation the Member resigned from both the Council and Community Council. The Ombudsman’s investigation found that the community WhatsApp group was comprised of members of a village hall committee and at the time of the exchange the Former Member was not a Council or Community Council representative on the committee or WhatsApp group. The Ombudsman found the Former Member was not acting in his public role during the exchange and therefore paragraphs 4(a) and 4(b) of the Code were not engaged when he made the post in his private capacity, and these provisions of the Code were not engaged when the Former Member made his comment on WhatsApp. The Ombudsman considered that had the Former Member been a Council or Community Council representative, his conduct could be suggestive of a breach of paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Code. However, the Ombudsman was not persuaded there was a sufficient link to the Former Member’s role to suggest the comment would affect the reputation of the Former Member’s office or authority. This being the case, the Ombudsman did not consider that the conduct was suggestive of a breach of paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Code.