PSOW Individual Decisions

Mr C complained that Wrexham Council had refused to repair a damaged water pipe, leading to dampness in his property. The Ombudsman decided that the Council’s investigation of Mr C’s complaint was not sufficiently robust. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement for a manager to review all the evidence relating to the case and provide Mr C with a further response within 4 weeks.

The Ombudsman received a complaint that a Member (“the Member”) of Broughton Community Council (“the Community Council”) and Wrexham County Borough Council (“the Council”) had breached the Code of Conduct (“the Code”).  It was alleged that during 2 Community Council meetings in 2024, the Member accused the Community Council and its members of being corrupt, regarding the way it had awarded a grass-cutting contract. The Ombudsman started an investigation to consider paragraphs 4(b) (respect and consideration) and 6(1)(a) (disrepute) of the Code. Information was obtained from the Community Council and the Council, including a copy of an Audit Wales report / audit opinion on the Community Council’s 2023/24 Annual Return.  Witnesses, including the Complainant, were interviewed.  The Member was also interviewed and provided an additional statement. The investigation found the Member had accused the Community Council of being ‘corrupt’ in a public meeting.  The Member said her use of the word applied to the Community Council’s processes and procedures in awarding the contract.  In addition, she noted that Audit Wales had been critical of the Community Council’s process regarding the matter.  The investigation also found the Community Council had addressed the Member’s concerns during the meeting, the Member would not have been aware of the Audit Wales report at the time of her comments, and it appeared she had made her comments with the individual bidders in mind, rather than the process or decision itself. The Ombudsman determined that, whilst the Member’s comments were suggestive of breaches of paragraphs 4(b) and 6(1)(a) of the Code, enhanced protection under Article 10 would also apply, as they related to matters concerning council business, were not directed at any one person, and there was no evidence to suggest any media attention, wider circulation or impact of the event on individuals or the Council itself.  In addition, the explanations provided to the Member ab

It was alleged that the Member (“the Member”) of Brymbo Community Council (“the Community Council”) and Wrexham County Borough Council (“the Council”) may have breached the Code of Conduct (“the Code”), regarding his behaviour towards employees of the Church in Wales (“CiW”), and specifically, during a site meeting at a disused church and a subsequent public community meeting. The Ombudsman’s Office started an investigation to consider paragraphs 4(b) (respect and consideration), 4(c) (bullying and harassment), 6(1)(a) (disrepute) and 7(a) (misuse of position) of the Code.  Information was obtained from the CiW, the Community Council and the Council.  The Complainant and a witness were interviewed.  The Member and a key witness also provided limited information. With regard to the site meeting, the investigation found that the attendees provided differing accounts of what took place.  In addition, the key witness was unwilling to provide evidence.  Whilst attempts were made to engage with the key witness in order to fully understand what had happened, and the impact of the incident, we were unable to establish their direct account.  With regard to the allegations about the community meeting the investigation found no evidence was provided to substantiate the allegations. Taking into account the conflicting accounts provided, and the lack of any direct or otherwise supporting evidence from the key witness that would corroborate the allegations, or contradict what the Member said, it was not possible to reconcile the differences in the accounts provided in a way that would allow this Office to reach a balanced view of what took place. Therefore, it was not possible to reach a determination on the allegations, even with further investigation, as to whether there had been a breach of the above paragraphs of the Code on the Member’s part.  It was not therefore proportionate or in the public interest to continue the investigation. Under Section 70 of the Local Government

It was alleged that the Member (“the Member”) of Broughton Community Council (“the Community Council”) and Wrexham County Borough Council (“the Council”) may have breached the Code of Conduct (“the Code”), regarding her behaviour towards employees of the Church in Wales (“CiW”), specifically, during a site meeting at a disused church and in a subsequent complaint to the CiW about the matter. The Ombudsman’s Office started an investigation to consider paragraphs 4(b) (respect and consideration), 4(c) (bullying and harassment), 6(1)(a) (disrepute) and 7(a) (misuse of position) of the Code.  Information was obtained from the CiW, the Community Council and the Council.  The Complainant and a witness were interviewed.  The Member and a key witness also provided limited information. With regard to the site meeting, the investigation found that the accounts of what took place differed.  In addition, a key witness was unwilling to provide evidence.  Whilst attempts were made to engage with the key witness in order to fully understand what had happened and its impact, we were unable to establish their direct account. With regard to the complaint to the CiW, the investigation found that whilst the Ombudsman did not condone the Member’s tone or comments, the Member was entitled to express her opinion and make a complaint in her private or official capacity should she choose to do so. Taking into account the conflicting accounts provided, and the lack of any direct or otherwise supporting evidence from the key witness that would corroborate the allegations, or contradict what the Member said, it was not possible to reconcile the differences in the accounts provided in a way that would allow this Office to reach a balanced view of what took place. Therefore, it was not possible to reach a determination on the allegations, even with further investigation, as to whether there had been a breach of the above paragraphs of the Code on the Member’s part.  It was not therefore proporti

Mr C complained that Wrexham County Borough Council failed to take enforcement action in relation to a development adjacent to his home. The Ombudsman decided that she could not consider the majority of the issues raised because they had occurred more than 12 months ago. However, she was able to consider issues relating to the handling of a Sustainable Drainage Approval Body (SAB) application, that the Council had not addressed in its complaint response. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to acknowledge Mr C’s complaint about the handling of the SAB application within one week, and to provide a response within 4 weeks. .

Miss A complained about how the Council had determined her application for a disabled facilities grant (“DFG”). Miss A said the Council undertook a DFG assessment in November 2023 at a property she had purchased and although she was verbally informed that it was not suitable for a DFG, she did not receive anything in writing until October 2024 when she requested it. Miss A also complained that when she contacted the Council in October 2024 about a DFG she was told that as her previous application had been rejected, she was unable to submit a new one. The Ombudsman found that the Council had not explained or apologised to Miss A for the delay in notifying her in writing about the outcome of the DFG assessment in November 2023 and did not address her complaint about the new request for a DFG in October 2024 being rejected. Additionally, the Council did not have an internal process or procedure for the handling and processing of DFG assessments and applications. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the agreement of the Council to provide a written apology to Miss A for the delay in writing to her with the outcome of the initial DFG assessment, to undertake a new DFG assessment at her property and, on completion, notify her in writing of the outcome within 6 weeks of the Ombudsman’s decision. The Council also agreed to document an internal process or procedure for DFG assessment to incorporate relevant follow up actions and, where necessary, appropriate timeframes within 12 weeks of the Ombudsman’s decision.

The Complainant, who held a governance role within Wrexham County Council (“the Council”), alleged that 3 Council members (“the 3 Members”), all highly experienced and leaders of their respective Political Groups, had breached the Code of Conduct (“the Code”), by jointly initiating legal proceedings in the Council’s name (known as “JR2”). Although against the Welsh Ministers, JR2 sought to prevent the imposition of the adoption of the Council’s draft  Local Development Plan (“LDP”). It was also alleged that 1 of the 3 Members had used his Council email for an unofficial purpose. The investigations considered whether paragraphs 6(1)(a) (disrepute), 7(a) (using or attempting to use their position improperly) or 7(b) (misuse of the Council’s resources) of the Code had been breached. We found that the Council’s Constitution did not explicitly provide the 3 Members with the power to commence litigation on the Council’s behalf, and that this power was delegated to the Monitoring Officer only. Acting outside the Council’s constitutional arrangements is conduct which might reasonably be regarded as bringing the office of member or the Council into disrepute. However, we found that issuing JR2 had not resulted in any significant personal gain to themselves or others, or the direct use of the Council’s resources and that the motive for initiating the proceedings was to uphold and defend democratic decisions of the Council. We also found that 1 of the 3 Members had unintentionally used his Council email account for a private, or political, purpose. We considered that it was appropriate for the Complainant to refer the matter to this office in his governance role, and that the Council’s Statutory Officers were acting in good faith, and on external legal advice received at the time, in not taking steps to uphold the Members’ decisions against adopting the draft LDP. Due to a more recent Court of Appeal decision, which confirmed that Council members were not obliged to adopt the

Miss B’s son is severely autistic, non-verbal and lacks mental capacity in terms of his care and support needs. Miss B’s Advocate complained on her behalf about the Council’s refusal to change her son’s Social Worker, as a result of the breakdown in Miss B’s relationship with the Social Worker. The reasons given by the Council was that it would not be in her son’s best interest. Miss B was unhappy with the Council’s subsequent handling of her complaint and the reasons it gave for not progressing her complaint to the next stage (Stage 2) of the social services complaints process. The Ombudsman noted that under the regulations that govern social services complaints, there is provision for a council not to accept a complaint from a representative of a person who lacks mental capacity. The Ombudsman considered that the Council’s response setting out its reasons for not taking forward a Stage 2 investigation could have been more carefully worded as it was not sufficiently clear. Given that the Council was relying on best interest considerations, the Ombudsman noted that there is a mechanism/process for endorsing best interest decisions in the form of best interest consultation meetings which Miss B and relevant consultees could attend. As part of an early resolution the Council agreed to apologise to Miss B for its communication about her Stage 2 request not being as clear as it could have been and to meet and consult with relevant consultees including Miss B as part of a best interest consultation meeting. This meeting would look at the Council’s best interest position for not changing Miss B’s son’s Social Worker.

Mr X complained that Wrexham County Borough Council failed to respond to his concerns about a new build adjacent to his property. The Ombudsman found that the Council had failed to respond to Mr X’s concerns, despite him receiving an acknowledgment that his concerns had been passed to the complaints team. The Ombudsman said that this caused uncertainty and frustration to Mr X. She 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 which should include an apology and explanation for the oversight in not responding to Mr X’s concerns.

The Ombudsman’s office received a complaint that a former member (“the Former Member”) of Chirk Town Council (“the Council”) had breached the Code of Conduct. The investigation found that the Former Member’s conduct was suggestive of a breach of paragraph 6(1)(a). The report on the investigation was referred to the Monitoring Officer of Wrexham County Borough Council for consideration by the County Council’s Standards Committee. The Council’s Standards Committee found that the Member had failed to comply with the paragraph 6(1)(a).  The Committee determined that a censure be imposed on the Former Member, noting it was the only sanction available to it given that the Former Member had resigned.

Mr H complained that Wrexham County Borough Council had failed to respond to the complaint he submitted in July 2024. The Ombudsman found that there had been a failure by the Council to respond to the complaint and this had caused inconvenience and frustration for Mr H. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to provide Mr H with a written apology and an explanation for the failure. The Council also agreed to offer Mr H a £50 redress payment in recognition of his time and trouble contacting the Ombudsman and to provide a complaint response within 20 working days.

Mr B complained that Wrexham County Council had failed to make a decision about an application he had submitted for a Residental Caravan Site Licence. Mr B first made the application in July 2023. He said the Council had not followed the statutory process, caused him wasted time and resources and caused reputational damage. Our assessment found that Mr B had promptly responded to requests for further information. However, the Council did not consider the information he provided was sufficient. The Council issued a notice of intention to refuse Mr B’s application in October 2023. Following a request for further information on 28 November 2023, which Mr B responded to the following day, he was not contacted again until 25 June 2024 when a request was made to meet with him to discuss the outstanding information. Subsequently Mr B raised a complaint and a Freedom of Information Act 2000 request. Further correspondence was exchanged with Mr B regarding outstanding information. Mr B disagreed that the information he had provided was not sufficient. At the time of complaining to the Ombudsman in October 2024, his application had not been determined. The Ombudmsan contacted the Council to agree further action to resolve Mr B’s complaint. The Council agreed to: • Within 4 weeks issue Mr B with a further response which included an apology, recognition and explanation for his application not being considered within the Council’s target completion period, specifically addressing what happened in the period 29 November 2023 – 25 June 2024. • Within 4 weeks issue Mr B with an apology for incorrectly advising him that a fee was due in respect of his application. • Allow a further 2 weeks for Mr B to submit any further information in support of his application, following which it agreed to make a decision on the application within 4 weeks. The Ombudsman considered the actions agreed were reasonable to resolve Mr B’s complaint.

Miss A complained that Wrexham County Borough Council had not carried out repairs that had been agreed in November 2023. The Council had also failed to issue a response to her further complaint made in August 2024. The Ombudsman found that Miss A had previously complained to the Ombudsman in September 2023. Although a complaint response was subsequently provided by the Council in November 2023, the works detailed in that letter had not been fully carried out. The Council had also failed to issue a complaint response to a further complaint made. Miss A had been inconvenienced by the Council’s failure to carry out agreed works in a timely manner. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to, within 4 weeks, provide Miss A with a written apology for the failure and/or delay in undertaking repair works previously agreed in November 2023, a response to her further complaint and with a written apology for the delay in providing a complaint response. The Council also agreed to provide Miss A with a detailed schedule of any works to be undertaken as a result of her complaints.

Mr A complained that Wrexham County Borough Council had not removed a shrub that had self-seeded into the side of his property. He said that despite reporting the issue some years previously, the shrub had still not been removed. The Ombudsman decided that it had taken the Council along time to respond to the issue which the complainant had first reported in2021. As a consequence of the time that had passed the shrub had grown, birds were nesting in it, and when the Council undertook a visit to the property in June 2024 the shrub could not be removed because nesting birds were present. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement that, within 20 working days, it would respond to Mr A’s complaint at Stage 2 of the Council’s complaint procedure, it would consider apologising for the time taken to remove the shrub and it would give Mr A a date in September when it would return to remove the shrub once the nesting birds had fledged.

Mrs B complained that there were delays in Wrexham County Borough Council preparing an individual development plan (“IDP” – a plan detailing a child’s additional learning needs and the support they require) for her daughter, that her daughter did not receive education between February and July 2023 and there was a delay in securing a school placement. The assessment of this complaint identified that it had taken 14 months to prepare the IDP which exceeded the expected time frame of 12 weeks. The complaint response Mrs B had received from the Council said there was no evidence the timescales for putting the IDP together were excessive. However, it did not explain why it was determined that this time frame was reasonable despite being significantly over 12 weeks. The Council agreed to issue a further complaint response to Mrs B, acknowledging the time taken to complete the IDP exceeded 12 weeks and providing further detail as to why this time frame was reasonable and appropriate. The Ombudsman considered this action was reasonable and closed the case on this basis.

The Ombudsman’s office received a complaint that a member (“the Member”) of Chirk Town Council (“the Council”) had breached the Code of Conduct.   It was alleged that the Member sent messages to an individual on social media threatening to report their spouse and prevent them from obtaining work from the Council. The investigation considered whether the Member failed to comply with the following provision of the Code of Conduct: 7(a) – Members must not, in their official capacity or otherwise, use or attempt to use their position improperly to confer on or secure for themselves, or any other person, an advantage or create or avoid for themselves, or any other person, a disadvantage. The investigation found that the Member’s explanation for his intention in sending the message was not a plausible one.  The messages could reasonably be interpreted as the Member suggesting that he would misuse his position as a member to disadvantage the individual’s husband.  The investigation found that the Member’s conduct was suggestive of a breach of paragraph 7(a) of the Code of Conduct. The report on the investigation was referred to the Monitoring Officer of Wrexham County Borough Council for consideration by the County Council’s Standards Committee.  The Council’s Standards Committee found that the Member had failed to comply with paragraph 7(a) of the Code of Conduct. The Committee decided that the most appropriate sanction to be applied was a censure and noted that it was the only sanction available to it given the Member’s resignation from the Council.

Mr A complained that the Council failed to support his late father financially with his care home fees when his assets fell before the capital threshold set by Welsh Government. Mr A said the Welsh Government threshold was set at £50,000 and had been at that level throughout the duration of his attempt to secure funding for his father’s care home fees, to which Mr A believed he was entitled. Mr A was aggrieved that the Council had published incorrect and misleading information on its website, stating that the threshold was£30,000 (that threshold had been for 2017-2018). Mr A said that he was under the impression that his father was ineligible for financial assistance due to having £35,000 at the time (in 2022). He said it was only after he conducted further independent research that he was made aware of the inaccuracy of the Council’s guidance. The Ombudsman was of the view that the guidance in question had misled Mr A regarding the threshold which was applicable at the time and therefore significantly delayed his contact with the Council to request the necessary assessment of his father’s eligibility. Mr A’s father sadly died before the necessary assessment could be undertaken. As an Early Resolution of this complaint, and instead of undertaking a full investigation, the Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to take the steps necessary to determine the financial assistance due, if any, to Mr A’s father based on the information available regarding his health/needs and financial assets during the period in question (i.e. from when his financial assets fell below the £50,000 threshold applicable at the time).The Council agreed to undertake this action within 3 months.

Miss F complained that Wrexham County Borough Council had failed to respond to the complaint that had been referred to it by the Ombudsman in July. The Ombudsman found that there had been a breakdown in communication between the teams dealing with the complaint and it had subsequently been overlooked. She said that this caused delays and frustration for Miss F. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to apologise to Miss F, pay her redress of £150 and provide a complaint response within 4 weeks.

Mrs A complained about the domiciliary care provided to her mother, Mrs B, by a Care Agency in April 2021, which had been commissioned by Wrexham County Borough Council. She complained that the Council was aware of ongoing safeguarding issues with the Care Agency, yet it commissioned them to provide care to her mother and other vulnerable service users putting them at risk. She said that the Council had no clear monitoring and review processes in place and that its complaint investigation was not robust. Mrs A also said that the Council refused, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, to conduct a new home assessment to support the direct payments that her mother made when she moved to a new care provider. The investigation found that the Council was aware of ongoing risks with the Care Agency from the monitoring it carried out in February 2020 and that these echoed the concerns Mrs A raised in April 2021. The Ombudsman was concerned that the Council was unable to provide any documentary evidence that would provide assurances that there was robust and effective monitoring of the Care Agency. The investigation concluded that the administrative failings amounted to maladministration and that the stress and inconvenience caused to Mrs A and her mother was an injustice. The Ombudsman was satisfied that the Council has a monitoring and review process in place and that it demonstrated that it followed its monitoring requirements of the Care Agency after April 2021. However, the Council was unable to demonstrate effective monitoring and review between March 2020 to April 2021 which forms an intrinsic part of the monitoring and review process. As a result, Mrs A was left with the uncertainty of not knowing if effective monitoring had taken place the outcome for her mother would have been different. This was an injustice for both Mrs A and her mother. These parts of Mrs A’s complaint were upheld. The investigation concluded that the Council’s Stage 2 Investigator’s decision to disrega

Mr A complained that Wrexham County Borough Council had failed to provide him with a new waste bin and did not fully address his concerns in its complaint response. The Ombudsman decided that the Council’s response did not accurately reflect the concerns that Mr A had raised, and this caused inconvenience and frustration for Mr A. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to apologise to Mr A for failing to properly address his concerns and to provide Mr A with a further complaint response within 3 weeks.

Mr & Mrs W complained that Wrexham County Borough Council had failed to follow the correct process when granting planning permission for a building on the land adjacent to theirs. The Ombudsman found that whilst the Council had been in contact with Mr & Mrs W, their concerns were not logged as a formal complaint. She said that this caused frustration and uncertainty to Mr & Mrs W. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to write to Mr & Mrs W with an apology and explanation for the failure to log their concerns as a formal complaint, offer to pay £50 redress for the time and trouble in making their complaint to the Ombudsman and issue a Stage 2 complaint response within 4 weeks.

Miss H complained that Wrexham County Borough Council had charged her for removal of items from a property she had vacated. She said the Council had not inspected the property until 11 days after she had left the property, and the Council had told her different dates that the inspection and removal of items had taken place. The Ombudsman found that the Council’s correspondence to Miss H referred to several different dates in 2022 and 2023 when the inspection took place. The Ombudsman said that this caused confusion and frustration for Miss H. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to apologise for the confusion caused, explain when the inspection and removals took place, and to pay Miss H £25 for the time and trouble in making her complaint within 4 weeks.

Mrs A complained that Wrexham County Borough Council (“the Council”) had not done enough to ensure that her late partner, Mr B’s needs were being met and monitored, particularly when she later raised concerns about his care home placement at a care home in England. Although the Ombudsman found evidence of good working on the part of the Council, she concluded that the Council should have taken steps to ensure that review arrangements around Mr B’s needs were put in place. The Ombudsman recognised that there were factors, including the COVID-19 pandemic, which would have affected Mr B’s move to another care home. However, given Mrs A’s increasing concerns about the ability of the Care Home to meet Mr B’s needs, the Ombudsman was clear that the Council’s eventual decision to carry out a telephone review could have been made sooner than in fact occurred. That said, the Ombudsman could not say that Mr B’s delayed move from the Care Home would not have happened, if the administrative shortcomings (around the review) had not occurred. However, she could not exclude the possibility that earlier decision-making by the First Council, especially in relation to the review arrangements, might have led to a different outcome. This uncertainty was the injustice for Mrs A and Mr B and to that extent the Ombudsman upheld Mrs A’s complaint. The Ombudsman recommended that the Council apologise to Mrs A and change its processes for out of county care home placements to ensure that appropriate review arrangements and/or contingency measures were put in place at the earliest opportunity.

Miss X complained about the fact that Wrexham County Borough Council had shortlisted her for 3 unsuitable properties and had failed to listen to her concerns regarding the suitability of the properties. The Ombudsman found that whilst the Council had admitted to failures and apologised, it had not provided an explicit explanation as necessary to make clear what had gone wrong. This resulted in Miss X experiencing stress and worry about the uncertainty. The Ombudsman contacted the Council and in resolution to Miss X’s complaint it agreed to, within 20 working days, provide a full and explicit explanation regarding the confusion over the door frame measurements in Property 3, together with an apology for the delay in informing Miss X that the property had subsequently been offered in error. The Council would also reiterate the offer of a goodwill payment of £250.

Miss F complained about Wrexham County Council’s handling of her complaint about children’s Social Services. Whilst the Ombudsman acknowledged that further to its enquiries with the Council, it had provided an apology and explanation to Miss F for the poor level of service experienced, the Ombudsman decided that the Council had not issued a complaint response. She said that this caused frustration and uncertainty to Miss F. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Council’s agreement to offer miss F redress of £125 and issue a complaint response within 4 weeks.