PSOW Individual Decisions

Ms A complained about Swansea Council’s Social Services department and its interactions with her about her children. Ms A was dissatisfied with the Council’s response to her Stage 2 complaint. She raised concerns about the Independent Investigation report, which the Council had declined to consider. The Ombudsman found that there had been a thorough and comprehensive independent Stage 2 investigation of Ms A’s complaint, which broadly addressed her concerns. However there were some aspects of the Independent Investigation report which were not sufficiently evidenced, and requested documents had not been provided to Ms A. The Council had not considered or responded to Ms A’s concerns about the report. Ms A was inconvenienced by the Council’s actions and this had caused frustration and uncertainty for her. The Ombudsman agreed to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Council agreed to consider Ms A’s correspondence and the matters which she said are factually incorrect in the Stage 2 Investigation Report within 4 weeks. It further agreed to provide her with a written response, addressing the matters contained in her correspondence to the Council and complaint to the Ombudsman, within 8 weeks.

Mr C complained about the care that Swansea Council (“the Council”) provided to his son, Mr A, who is an adult with support needs. He raised concerns about safeguarding, communication, representation and management of finances. Mr C also complained that the Council had failed to adequately respond to his complaints about the service provided to his son. The Ombudsman found that there were errors and significant delays in handling Mr C’s complaints between 2018 and 2025. Even when complaints were upheld, the Council did not take action to put things right. This damaged the relationship between Mr C and the Council and led him to lose confidence in the Council’s commitment to supporting Mr A. The Ombudsman considered that the Council had not taken appropriate action to ensure that Mr A’s needs were met and that his rights were upheld. The Ombudsman proposed that the Council should take action to resolve the complaint. The Council agreed to write to Mr C within 1 month to apologise for the poor communication and handling of his complaints, address the unresolved issues and offer Mr C a financial remedy in recognition of the time and trouble taken to pursue his complaint. The Council also agreed to undertake a review of arrangements relating to Mr A’s finances within 3 months. The Ombudsman considered that it was appropriate to settle the complaint on the basis of this action.

Mrs A complained that Swansea Council failed to respond to the complaint she submitted. The Ombudsman found that, while the Council had logged the complaint in April 2025 and provided discussion notes to Mrs A, it did not provide a formal complaint response. The Ombudsman said this caused uncertainty and frustration for Mrs A and decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to, within 4 weeks, offer an apology to Mrs A for the oversight in not providing a formal complaint response and explain why this happened, issue a formal complaint response and offer a £100 financial redress payment in recognition of the time and trouble.

Mr A complained that he had not received a response from Swansea Council in respect of a complaint he made about a crossing outside of his home affecting parking. The Ombudsman decided that whilst some of the complaint related to issues that had been complained about previously, to which the Council had responded, some of the issues raised appeared to be new concerns. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement that within 1 month it would write to Mr A, apologise for not responding to his complaint, clarify which issues raised it was not able to revisit and address any outstanding issues.

Mr X complained that Swansea Council failed to take action regarding a an unauthorised development, failed to enforce planning controls, and did not address his concerns in the complaint response. The Ombudsman found that, while the matter had been ongoing for a long period of time and a complaint response had been provided, the complaint response did not include many details regarding the concerns raised, the Council took little action over a prolonged period of time, and there were considerable delays. The Ombudsman said this caused uncertainty and frustration for Mr X and decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to, within 2 weeks, issue the Enforcement Warning Notice, ensure the Enforcement Officer has spoken to the Legal Department to commence prosecution proceedings, to update Mr X on the steps it has taken, and to advise Mr X that regular updates will be provided on the progress. Furthermore, within 4 weeks, the Council will provide Mr X with a complaint response that includes more detail regarding the concerns raised, sets out why no action was previously taken, and acknowledges and apologises for the avoidable delays. This response will also provide a summary / chronology of the events that have occurred during the last 12 months and will include an apology and explanation as to why the Enforcement Warning Notice was not issued and why the commencement of legal proceedings did not take place. The complaint response will also include an offer of £200 financial redress payment in recognition of the delays and the time and trouble of complaining to the Ombudsman.

Mrs X complained that Swansea Council had delayed addressing the concerns she had raised in relation to the trees, and it had failed to keep her updated. The Ombudsman found that there had been a significant delay and the Council had failed to provide a complaint response. The Ombudsman said this caused uncertainty and frustration to Mrs X. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to, within 3 weeks, apologise for the delays, provide a complaint response and offer £150 redress payment in recognition of the delay, failure to provide a complaint response and for Mrs X’s time and trouble.

Ms M complained that the Council did not take into account her needs when it allocated her a property. She said that her current property was not appropriate as both access points had steps and the one leading to the communal car park had been blocked off by the Council. Ms M said she was in the process of taking legal action against the Council about the access being blocked, therefore the Ombudsman was unable to consider this part of the complaint. The Ombudsman found that although the Council had responded to Ms M about the access to the communal car park in its complaint response, it had not addressed her complaint about the suitability of her property for her needs when being allocated. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to provide a complaint response within 6 weeks and to apologise to Ms M for not addressing her complaint fully. The Council also agreed to offer £50 financial redress in recognition of the time and trouble taken by Ms M to make the complaint.

Ms B complained that Swansea Council had failed to respond fully to a complaint that she had made about the conduct of the Council when she requested it determine whether her son had Additional Learning Needs (‘ALN’), in May 2024. She also complained that the Council had failed to officially minute an internal meeting relating to her son’s educational needs. The Ombudsman decided that whilst Stage 2 complaint responses had been sent in respect of both complaints, Ms B had not received a full response to the complaint about the conduct of staff in determining the ALN, or a sufficient apology in respect of the meeting minutes. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement that within 1 month it would send a further complaint response addressing her concerns, which should also apologise for not minuting the meeting and outline learning to ensure future meetings were minuted.

Mr A complained about Swansea Council’s actions after it was notified that it had been given the incorrect banding for his property, resulting in an overpayment of Council Tax. He said that his online request for a refund was not actioned. Mr A was also unhappy with the Council’s complaint response, and the lack of information provided about the charges to his account. The Ombudsman decided that the Council had responded appropriately to the information it had about the property banding, and that it had refunded Mr A the overpayment. However the Council did not respond to Mr A’s request for an explanation of the charges and statements issued, and it could not identify what happened to Mr A’s online request for a refund. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement within 2 weeks to provide Mr A with details of the charges, an explanation of the statements issued, and confirmation of action it would take to ensure that all future online requests were documented on the relevant accounts.

Ms K complained about the Council’s handling of and decision to approve a neighbour’s planning application, and specifically whether there was maladministration in respect of: 1. its communication with her about the application 2. its management and consideration of the objections received to the application 3. its consideration of relevant planning policies, supplementary guidance documents and other material planning considerations 4. its consideration of the impact of the development on her amenity, including the loss of light. The Ombudsman’s investigation found that the Council’s actions were appropriate in relation to its consideration of objections, national/local guidance and the impact of the development on Ms K’s amenity. Therefore, complaints 2-4 were not upheld. In relation to complaint 1, the Ombudsman found that there was no evidence to suggest that the Council’s communication with Ms K put her at a significant disadvantage in any way. This complaint was also not upheld.

Miss X complained about the conduct of Swansea Council (“the Council”) staff from May 2024 when she made a request for the Council to determine if her son had additional learning needs (“ALN”), until the conclusion of a Tribunal appeal hearing in January 2025. Miss X complained to the Council following the Tribunal hearing, which noted its disappointment with the Council’s failure to understand the statutory requirements around ALN and failure to consider up to date evidence. Miss X replied to the Council’s initial complaint response to express dissatisfaction that the response did not address her concerns, but did not receive a reply. The Council said it had not responded to Miss X as she had complained to the Ombudsman. As a result, Miss X was not offered the opportunity to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the Council’s complaints procedures. The Council agreed to, within 4 weeks, issue a stage 2 complaint response to Miss X. The Ombudsman was satisfied this action resolved Miss X’s complaint and it was closed on this basis.

Ms A complained that, although her complaint was upheld following investigation, particularly regarding poor communication with her grandmother/family about the financial charging arrangements at 2 Council owned residential care homes where her grandmother was placed for assessment, the Council was still pursuing the family for these charges. An independent investigation, at stage 2 of the Social Services Complaints Procedure, upheld Ms A’s complaint. Responding to the investigation, the Council acknowledged there had been miscommunication about the charging arrangements, which it accepted were not fully explained to the family. It also recognised that documentation about the charges was either not in place or it was unclear about the charges. Although the Council acknowledged shortcomings in the way it communicated with the family about these charges and apologised for this, there continued to be an unresolved aspect to Ms A’s complaint stemming from the identified shortcomings. The Council therefore agreed to waive the outstanding fees for both care homes. The Ombudsman was satisfied that the action which the Council said it would take was reasonable and would resolve Ms A’s complaint.

Mr A complained that he was unhappy with the works carried out to his property through a Homefix loan with Swansea Council. Mr A said that there were long delays, and that work had to stop to apply for planning permission when it was realised that his property was in a conservation area. Mr A said there were outstanding repairs, and that damage had been caused to his property during the course of the works. Mr A said that at times he found written information from the Council difficult to understand because English is not his preferred language. The Ombudsman decided that the Council had acted appropriately in relation to the works carried out at the property. Some of the delays were unavoidable, and the damage caused during the course of the works had been rectified. However, the Council held Mr A responsible for not stating that his property was in a conservation area at the application stage. The Council had not requested this information from Mr A and it did not have clear guidance on what information applicants are expected to provide. The Council acknowledged that Mr A had struggled to understand some information provided to him and had asked if his relative would translate for him. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement within 2 weeks, to apologise to Mr A that he was held solely responsible for recognising the property was in a conservation area, develop guidance to state what information applicants are expected to provide, acknowledge that English is not Mr A’s preferred language and offer to translate information into his preferred language.

Mr A complained that the Council had failed to enforce planning conditions. Public areas remained unadopted and a Section 106 Agreement, setting out public works, had not been enforced. Mr A was dissatisfied with the Council’s complaint handling and said that information contained in the complaint response was inaccurate. The Ombudsman said that enforcement of planning conditions is a discretionary matter for the Council. There had been ongoing discussions and/or meetings between the Council and the Developer in relation to the concerns raised. Whilst progress may have been slow, matters were progressing. The Council had responded to Mr A’s complaint at Stage1 and 2 of its complaints process. The Council said the Developer had appointed a management company to deal with unadopted areas, which was incorrect. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to, within 4 weeks, provide Mr A with an apology for the misinformation about the management company contained in correspondence, together with a written explanation of the position and to also, within 6 weeks, provide Mr A with a written update to his complaint, setting out the current position and any progress made.

Mrs A complained that her landlord, Swansea Council, had delayed in responding to reports of mould at her property. The Ombudsman’s investigation considered whether the Council had appropriately investigated the reports of damp between January and December 2022. The Ombudsman upheld the complaint. A significant damp proofing repair that was identified on 28 January was not completed in a timely way. There was no further follow up or inspection until 19 October when Mrs A had already made and escalated a formal complaint to the Council. This delay represented an injustice to Mrs A. The Council confirmed that, since the above events, it had implemented a different repairs system so this type of repairs delay should not recur. It also agreed to apologise to Mrs A for the delay in taking action to complete the damp repair and to make a redress payment to her of £500.

Miss S complained that Swansea Council had failed to formally investigate a complaint she raised concerning free school meals or payment in lieu. The Ombudsman found that the Council had treated Miss S’s complaint as a service request but had failed to inform her. This caused additional frustration and uncertainty for Miss S. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to write to Miss S, within 2 weeks, to apologise and open a Stage 2 investigation.

Mr A complained about planning enforcement for a local site. In responding to Mr A’s complaint the Council had said it would provide him with an update, but Mr A said it had not done so. The Ombudsman considered that the Council had not provided Mr A with any update about its assessment of the site. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to provide an update to include the current position with the assessment of the site within 3 weeks.

Mrs A complained about how the Council had handled her initial application for a Disabled Facilities Grant (“DFG”). She said that it had not considered all options within the property to provide the required adaptations. As a result, she had applied for a DFG through the Council’s “reactive” route which meant obtaining her own plans and costings. However, there had been delays in her submitting the relevant paperwork, in part owing to her ill health. The Council had therefore closed the grant application on time grounds. Having assessed the complaint, the Ombudsman could not see evidence, in relation to the initial DFG application, that all options had been discussed with Mrs A, or that this had been addressed in the response to her complaint. In light of the specific circumstances in this case and in order to progress the current DFG application, the Council agreed to allow an extension of time by 1 month to enable Mrs A to submit the relevant paperwork.

Mrs S explained that, in September 2022, she received paperwork from the Council that stated her mother was in receipt of Direct Payments, which was incorrect. Mrs S said that Direct Payments had been discussed in 2019, but not actioned. She therefore repeatedly asked whether they should have been, but the Council had not directly addressed her query. When the Council referred Mrs S to the Complaints Department in January 2024, she was told that it would not investigate her complaint because it was out of time. The Ombudsman found that Mrs S had questioned the statement promptly when she became aware of it, and that the Council had acknowledged and apologised for communication issues in 2023. It had also said that there appeared to have been “confusion or information possibly misunderstood” but had not explored where that confusion might have arisen or what impact it might have had. The Ombudsman concluded that it was not reasonable for the Council to simply say that the paperwork was wrong but the events to which the paperwork referred were out of time. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms S for failing to fully explore and address her concern. It also agreed to investigate and clarify precisely where the “confusion or information possibly misunderstood” came about, how this caused the form to contain inaccurate information, and whether the outcome of that investigation indicates that there was maladministration in 2019. Finally, it agreed to take appropriate action if any further maladministration was identified. It agreed to take these actions within 6 weeks of the Ombudsman’s decision.

Ms K complained that Swansea Council failed to issue a response to her complaint, which she made to it in October 2023. The Ombudsman found that whilst the Council had logged Ms K’s concerns as a Stage 1 complaint, it had failed to provide a complaint response. She said that this caused frustration and uncertainty to Ms K. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to write to Ms K with an apology for the failure and to issue a Stage 1 complaint response within 4 weeks.

Mr A complained that his children had been given incorrect information about events which occurred prior to them being taken into care and how his subsequent complaint was dealt with by Swansea Council (“the Council”). The Ombudsman decided that the Council had not carried out the recommendations made in stage 2 complaint report in full. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to write to Mr A within 20 working days, providing him with further information, apologising for not providing this information sooner and to make a redress payment of £250 for time and trouble in having to escalate his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Miss L complained that Swansea Council failed to investigate the cause of damp and mould in her property and delayed taking action to resolve the matter. The Ombudsman found that the Council failed to issue a response to Miss L’s initial complaint and had failed to log Miss L’s recent concerns as a complaint. She said this caused uncertainty and frustration to Miss L. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to write to Miss L and provide the necessary apologies for the identified failures, offer £75 redress in recognition for her time and trouble in making a complaint to the Ombudsman and to issue a complaint response within 4 weeks.

Mr B raised a complaint about the transfer of his son’s Special Educational Needs provision when he changed schools. Mr B was unhappy with the complaint response he received from the Stage C Committee and complained to Swansea Council to review the investigation of his complaint. The Council found that the investigation had been adequate and followed appropriate process. However, Mr B was not satisfied that the specific concerns he had raised with the Council had been addressed as they were not detailed in its complaint response to him. The Council agreed to issue a further complaint response to Mr B within 20 working days. This would include details about why the Council was satisfied the investigation was adequate, specifically addressing concerns raised by Mr B about the scope of the investigation, the information considered, the personnel consulted and the independence of the Stage C Committee. The Ombudsman considered this action was reasonable to resolve Mr B’s complaint.

Miss C complained that Swansea Council failed to provide a response to her emails about the damaged caused to her garden wall and the repair work undertaken. The Ombudsman found that the Council had not responded to all of Miss C’s emails and it failed to log her concerns as a complaint. She said that this caused frustration and uncertainty to Miss C. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to write to Miss C with an apology for the oversights and to issue a complaint response within 2 weeks.

Miss N complained that despite reporting threats of violence and criminal damage by her neighbours, Swansea Council failed to allocate her new housing. The Ombudsman found that the Council failed to act in accordance with its statutory complaint’s procedure and failed to issue a written complaint response. She also found that the Council failed to inform Miss N on how to escalate her concerns should she be dissatisfied. She felt this caused additional frustration to Miss N. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. She sought the Council’s agreement to issue a written apology to Miss N by 31 October and to open a Stage 2 complaint investigation.