Following the recent publication of my Annual Report, I am pleased to enclose the Annual Letter ( ) for Cardiff County Council.

Transcription

1 Our ref: PT/jm Ask for: James Merrifield Your ref: Date: 13 July 212 James.Merrifield@ombudsman-wales.org.uk Mr Jon House Chief Executive Cardiff County Council County Hall Atlantic Wharf Cardiff CF1 UW Dear Jon Annual Letter 211/12 Following the recent publication of my Annual Report, I am pleased to enclose the Annual Letter ( ) for Cardiff County Council. The Annual Letter provides you with a clear and concise breakdown of all complaints received and investigated by my office during 211/12 in relation to your Council. You will also find details of the time taken by your Council in responding to requests for information from my office, as well as summaries of all reports issued in relation to your Council. As outlined in my Annual Report, the total number of complaints received by my office about maladministration and service failure increased by 13% compared with 21/11. Whilst health complaints continue to be the most numerous type of complaints received by my office, Planning and Housing remain the next largest areas of complaint. It is pleasing to note the increased levels of Quick Fixes and Voluntary Settlements which would often not be possible without the cooperation of public bodies. This means that it has been possible to increase the number of complaints closed at earlier stages without the need for a full investigation (where it is clear that there are no systemic issues associated with the complaint). Nevertheless, my office had reason to issue a number of Public Interest Reports during 211/12 which raised serious concerns and failings. A number relate to local authority complaints, I would encourage all councils to revisit these reports, which are available on my website, to ensure that the lessons are learnt. Others relate to health matters but could also have general learning opportunities for local authorities.

2 I raised concerns in last year s Annual Letters regarding the amount of time taken by public bodies in Wales in responding to requests for information from my office and it is disappointing that this situation has not improved. The statistics for 211/12 show that average response times for Local Authorities, as well as other bodies in Wales, has worsened to the extent that roughly three quarters of responses are received more than four weeks after they were requested. I continue to urge all Welsh public bodies to assist my staff in progressing their investigations by providing responses in a timely manner. In reference to the performance of your Council, there has been a slight increase in both the number of complaints received and taken into investigation by my office in comparison to the figures for 21/11. The largest number of complaints related to Housing, which was almost three times the figure which could be expected for your Authority. My office also received a comparatively large number of complaints relating to Planning and Building Control, and Children s Social Service. In reference to complaint outcomes, the figures indicate that my office has issued a higher number of Upheld reports than could be expected for your Authority. My office has also had cause to issue one Public Interest Report and I would encourage you to review this report to ensure that all lessons have been learnt. Finally, it is pleasing to note that more than half of responses to requests for information from my office were received within four weeks and I would hope for continued improvement in this area. Finally, I have outlined my concern at the 9% increase in the number of Code of Conduct complaints received by my office in this year s Annual Report, together with steps which I will consider taking to tackle any emerging practices in respect of such complaints. I have also set out changes designed to promote a local resolution process and reduce the number of complaints by councillors against other councillors which are brought to my office. Consequently, I hope to be able to report a decline in the number of Code of Conduct complaints received next year. A copy of this letter will be published on our website shortly. If you consider it would be beneficial, I would be glad to meet with you to discuss the contents of this letter and the work of my office. Yours sincerely Peter Tyndall Ombudsman

3 Appendix Explanatory Notes Sections A and B provide a breakdown of the number of complaints about Cardiff County Council which were received and taken into investigation by my office during Section C compares the number of complaints against Cardiff which were received by my office during , with the local authority average for the same period. The figures are broken down into subject categories. Sections D and E compare the number of complaints against Cardiff which were received and taken into investigation by my office during , with the local authority average (adjusted for population distribution 1 ) during the same period. Section F compares the complaint outcomes for Cardiff during , with the average outcome (adjusted for population distribution) during the same period. Public Interest reports issued under section 16 of the Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Act 25 are recorded as Section 16. Section G compares the response times of Cardiff during with the average response times for all local authorities, and all public bodies in Wales during the same period. Graph G measures the time between the date my office issues an investigation commencement letter, and the date my office receives a full response to that letter from the public body. Section H provides a breakdown of all Code of Conduct complaints received against Cardiff Councillors during Finally, Section I contains the summaries of all reports issued in relation to Cardiff during In order to assist in measuring performance during , many sections also contain the relevant figures for Housing Stock As with the figures for , the figures for have not been adjusted to take account of the transfer of housing stock. However, it is noted that there is likely to be a higher proportion of Housing complaints where local authorities have retained their housing stock. Feedback We welcome your feedback on the enclosed information, including suggestions for any information to be enclosed in future annual summaries. Any feedback or queries should be sent to james.merrifield@ombudsman-wales.org.uk. 1 All figures have been rounded to decimal places.

4 A: Complaints received by my office Subject Adult Social Services Benefits Administration 7 3 Children s Social Services 1 2 Community facilities, recreation and leisure 2 1 Education 6 11 Environment and Environmental Health 7 1 Finance and Taxation 3 6 Health 2 2 Housing Planning and building control 12 1 Roads and Transport 6 Agriculture and Fisheries 1 Various Other 9 2 Total B: Complaints taken into investigation by my office Number of complaints taken into investigation 7 6

5 No. of complaints C: Comparison of complaints by subject category with LA average Cardiff LA average Adult Social Services Benefits Administration 1 Children's Social Services 2 Community facilities, recreation and leisure 6 7 Education 2 3 Environment and Environmental Health Finance and Taxation Health Housing Planning and building control Subject category 6 Roads and Transport 9 5 Various Other Adult Social Services Benefits Children's Administration Social Services Cardiff 1 Community facilities, recreation and leisure LA average 11 1 Education 2 3 Environment and Environmental Health 6 Finance and Taxation Subject category Health Housing Planning and building control Roads and Transport 1 2 Agriculture and Fisheries 3 Various Other

6 No. of complaints No. of complaints D: Comparison of complaints received by my office with average, adjusted for population distribution 125 Cardiff LA average Complaints received E: Comparison of complaints taken into investigation by my office with average, adjusted for population distribution 1 Cardiff LA average Complaints investigated

7 No. of outcomes No. of outcomes F: Comparison of complaint outcomes with average outcomes, adjusted for population distribution Cardiff LA average Out of jurisdiction Premature 'Other' cases closed after initial consideration 1 Discontinued Complaint outcome 8 9 Quick Fix/ Voluntary Settlement 1 Section 16 - Upheld - in whole or in part 9 Other Report - Upheld - in whole or in part 1 2 Other Report - Not Upheld Cardiff LA average Out of Juristiction Premature Investigation not merited 7 Quick Fix/ Voluntary Settlement 2 3 Discontinued Section 21 - upheld Complaint outcome Section 21 - partially upheld Section 21 - not upheld Withdrawn Section 17 restriction 1

8 No. of complaints % of responses G: Comparison of Cardiff s times for responding to requests for information with average LA and average All Wales response times, Cardiff 3 3 LA Average Average All Wales response time <1 week 1 to 2 weeks 2 to 3 weeks 3 to weeks to 5 weeks 5 to 6 weeks Over 6 weeks Response time H: Code of Conduct complaints Decision not to investigate 1 No action necessary Complaint outcome Refer to Standards Committee Withdrawn

9 I: Report summaries Education Upheld March 212 Other Cardiff County Council Mr Y said that the County Council had failed to respond effectively to his complaints following a decision by the Governing Body about his son s treatment at school. He said that he had not had a full and fair hearing. (His son was alleged to have hacked into the school s computer system and had been banned from using a computer at school.) He went on to produce compelling evidence on behalf of his son. The Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over schools or governing bodies but can look at the actions of the County Council in relation to the operation of the complaints process. Under the school s complaints procedure, the County Council s role is limited to a review of process. The Ombudsman found that there was persistent delay by the County Council in its complaint handling. Although to its credit, after an initial delay following Mr Y s first complaint, it had asked the Governing Body to rehear the complaint. Ten months later the Governing Body said belatedly, that it was prepared to consider only one aspect. Mr Y complained to the County Council again but there is no evidence that his second complaint was considered at all. The Ombudsman said that he would have expected any review to have highlighted the delay and belated restriction of Mr Y s complaint which no reasonable person would say was acceptable. The Ombudsman expressed his concern that the interests of Mr Y s son were overlooked in this case. The Ombudsman required the County Council to: a) apologise and make a payment of 75 for the unnecessary lengths which Mr Y had to go to, in making his complaints, b) review its process for dealing with Education complaints, including the introduction of timescales and guidelines for officers and c) facilitate independent IT advice on the issues raised in the complaints and make an appropriate recommendation to the school. Case reference January 212 Admissions procedures and appeals Cardiff County Council Mr P complained that the Council had not properly considered an appeal by himself and the parents of Child A in relation to admission to the school of choice. Mr P queried whether medical evidence submitted in the case had been considered and whether other appeals heard at that time had been handled in a consistent manner. Mr P also raised concerns about the late confirmation of the appeal decision and of the final school placement for Child A; also that his letter of complaint had not been handled in line with the timescales set out within the Council s complaints procedure. The outcome of the appeal was that the arguments for the admission of Child A and the other appellants to the school in question were not such that they should outweigh any prejudice resulting to the school by increasing admissions above its agreed number of pupils. Child A and the other appellants were placed on the waiting list for that school.

10 The investigation found that the admission appeals for Child A and others had been handled in line with the procedures set out by the Council and that these procedures were in line with national guidance. It also found that the medical evidence submitted on behalf of Child A had been considered. The Ombudsman concluded that there was no maladministration in relation to these matters; however, the complaint was partly upheld due to handling failures on the part of the Council, which had caused injustice to the family by virtue of delay and uncertainty. The Council agreed to apologise to Child A s parents for the poor handling and to make a payment to them in the sum of 1. Case reference December 211 Other Cardiff County Council Mr and Mrs K complained that the Council had not made the provision specified in their child s Special Educational Needs (SEN) statement at School 1. They subsequently applied for their child to be transferred to School 2 and complained that the transfer process had been unjustifiably delayed. Finally they complained that the Council had failed to respond adequately to their complaints to it. The Ombudsman found that the provision in the statement (which related to a risk assessment at the School 1) had not been met. Whilst monitoring visits had been undertaken by Council staff, there was no suitable and sufficient risk assessment in place for Mr and Mrs K s child at School 1. The Council had also failed to respond to Mr and Mrs K s complaints to it. The Ombudsman therefore upheld these aspects of the complaint. However, he did not uphold the complaint that the transfer process was delayed as it was within the statutory timescales for amending a SEN statement. The Council accepted the recommendations made by the Ombudsman. It agreed to review its risk assessment training to staff and to ensure that the wording of statements was clear in terms of who was responsible for making the relevant provisions. It also agreed to apologise to Mr and Mrs K and had appointed an officer to undertake a review of the complaints processes within the Education Service. Case reference 21128

11 Environment and Environmental Health Upheld December 211 Noise and other nuisance issues Cardiff County Council Mr C complained that Cardiff County Council failed to consult residents about the installation of a 5-a-side football pitch in a local Park. He also complained that the pitch was a source of noise nuisance and the Council failed to deal with his complaints about the issue properly. Under the Town and Country Planning Act 199, as the land was used previously as tennis courts, the Council did not require planning permission to install the pitch. There was therefore no requirement for the Council to undertake formal consultation in advance of such a change. The Ombudsman did not investigate Mr C s complaint that the Council failed to consult residents. Mr C was advised of that decision on 7 June 211. Under the Environmental Protection Act 199, the Council must investigate complaints about noise nuisance and decide if the noise is a statutory nuisance. The Ombudsman can look at complaints about the way in which the Council has dealt with such noise nuisance complaints. However, he cannot undertake his own investigation of the nuisance and cannot reach a decision on whether the noise is a statutory nuisance. The Ombudsman also cannot overrule a council s decision about whether there is a statutory noise nuisance. The Ombudsman concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that the Council had failed in its statutory duty in reaching the decision that the noise was not a statutory nuisance. This part of Mr. C s complaint was not upheld. However, the Ombudsman did consider that the Council s failure to properly inform Mr C of its decision was unsatisfactory. He also found that the delay in responding fully to Mr C s complaint was completely unsatisfactory. The complaint about the Council s handling of his complaint was therefore upheld. The Ombudsman recommended that Mr C receive redress of 1 and an apology for the identified failings. He also recommended that the Council should develop a noise nuisance policy and provide appropriate training to officers to ensure its complaint handling service conforms to the relevant performance standards. Case reference 2111

12 Housing Upheld August 211 Neighbour disputes and anti-social behaviour Cardiff County Council Ms B, an owner occupier in a mixed tenure block owned by the Council, complained that it had taken no action/timely action against tenant neighbours, Mr H, Mr C & Ms E about whose behaviour she had complained. In particular, Ms B complained that the Council had delayed in/failed to: issue proceedings and ensure Mr H s eviction sooner; deal with her complaints against Mr C & Ms E including complaints that they left communal hallway windows open; investigate whether Mr C was occupying his tenancy; keep her informed / supply her with incident diaries quickly enough; and that the Council s ineffective management of the block had resulted in her annual service charges increasing. Finally, Ms B also complained about the Council s decisions on allocating vacancies in the block. The investigation found that the Council had acted on the complaints made by Ms B and had followed its own policies and procedures in relation to Mr H. Internal legal advice had been sought and evidence showed that possession proceedings were issued/concluded overall within a reasonable time. That complaint was not upheld. In relation to the remainder of the complaints, it was noted that it was not for the Ombudsman to decide whether someone should be evicted or not. However, whilst reminders were sent about tenancy conditions and behaviour within the block, a delay was found to have occurred in relation to complaints about Mr C & Ms E; probably because of the focus on Mr H s court action. There had also been communication failings and a delay in supplying Ms B with the incident diaries (which the Council had apologised for). Those complaints were upheld, although it was not for the Ombudsman to decide that the evidence either warranted possession action against Mr C or Ms E, or to predict what, if taken, the outcome might have been. The complaint about windows being left open and the occupation of Mr C s flat were not upheld. Evidence demonstrated that no reasonable action, other than as taken by the Council, could be taken concerning common parts windows, and that Mr C s occupation of his flat had been investigated. The remaining complaints were not upheld as the Ombudsman could not get involved in service charge levels, but he reminded the Council that it would be unfair to pass on to Ms B (or other leaseholders) the cost of remedial work necessary because of an unidentifiable tenant s actions. Allocation decisions were for the Council to take, in accordance with law, and the Ombudsman could not get involved. The Council accepted the Ombudsman s findings and recommendations that included an apology to Ms B and redress of 15 for the identified delay and communication failures. Any formal recommendation about its policy/related procedures was not required as they had been made in other complaints already

13 investigated by his office (covering the same time frame as the events in Ms B s complaint). Case reference August 211 Cleansing/public conveniences/streets Cardiff County Council Miss A, an owner occupier in a block of flats, made repeated complaints that one of the tenants living in the block of flats was causing a nuisance by putting her rubbish out early. In addition, the same tenant s son was carrying out acts of vandalism such as breaking the clothes line and damaging the fences. Miss A complained that she was contributing to making good these damages through her service charges. Having formally complained to the Council about its failure to deal effectively with the nuisance, Miss A expressed dissatisfaction with the Council s subsequent handling of her complaint. The Ombudsman s investigation concluded that broadly the Council had taken steps to address the nuisance about which Miss A had complained. However, the Ombudsman highlighted a number of junctures throughout Miss A s case where the Council s communication process had not been as effective as it might have been; this included delays in responding to written correspondence. The communication shortcomings identified were felt to be maladministrative and, to that extent, Miss A s complaint was upheld. Whilst welcoming the steps that the Council had taken, on its own initiative, to respond to the failings underpinning Miss A s case, the Ombudsman recommended that within one month of the report being finalised, the Council s Chief Executive should apologise once again for the failings identified and make an additional payment of 2 to reflect the extent of the inconvenience caused to Miss A. Finally, the Council was asked to consider (within a three month timescale), what lessons could be learnt in relation to Miss A s case and whether additional mechanisms needed to be put in place to address some of the communication failings that had featured in Miss A s complaint. Case reference 2111 Not Upheld September 211 Neighbour disputes and anti-social behaviour Cardiff County Council The complaint related to the manner in which the Council responded to allegations of noise nuisance and ASB by several of its tenants. Having considered evidence from the complainant, the Police and the Council, the Ombudsman concluded that there had been no maladministration in the Council s handling of the complaints that had been reported to it. He therefore did not uphold the complaint. Case reference

14 Planning and Building Control Upheld March 212 Other planning matters Cardiff County Council Mr W s complaint related to the Council s handling of a successful planning application for a waste incinerator development in Cardiff. He complained that the consultation exercise undertaken by the Council about the proposed development, in view of its potential impact, was inadequate. Mr W considered that had the consultation been more extensive, the Council would have refused permission for the proposed development. Mr W was concerned that the facility would release dangerous and harmful emissions which would be detrimental to the health of the City s residents. The Ombudsman found that given the nature, significance and siting of the proposed development, the consultation exercise fell short of what could reasonably be expected of it, which amounted to maladministration on the part of the Council. Despite that shortcoming, wide-ranging and detailed objections were made about the application and were properly considered by the Council. The Ombudsman considered it unlikely that had more representations been received as a result of a more extensive consultation exercise, other significant objections would have been raised which would have led to a different outcome. Given where Mr W lived, the Ombudsman was not persuaded that he had suffered an injustice as a result of the maladministration. However, a number of individuals who Mr W represented, given where they lived, suffered an injustice through not being adequately consulted. The Ombudsman upheld the complaint with respect to those individuals. The Ombudsman recommended that the Council apologise to them and review its consultation procedure where a proposed development may be seen to have a potential significant and widespread impact on public health. Case reference

15 Social Services Adult Public Interest Report January 212 Adult Social Services Cardiff County Council Mrs L complained to the Ombudsman about the manner in which Cardiff Council handled a referral made to its social services department under Protection of Vulnerable Adults (POVA) arrangements. The referral, which was raised by hospital staff when Mrs L s husband was admitted to the hospital related to concerns about the manner in which he had been allowed to develop the most severe grade of pressure sore. Prior to admission Mr L, who suffered from MS and was bed-ridden was being cared for at home by Mrs L and his carers whilst District Nurses managed his pressure sores. Mrs L was concerned that the POVA arrangements had failed to investigate the concerns expressed and failed to investigate discrepancies in the evidence provided by district nurses at POVA meetings. She was also concerned about the manner in which the Council dealt with her complaint about the matter. The Ombudsman upheld the complaint finding that the consideration of the referral by the POVA meetings was inadequate and that their findings were unsustainable and should be set aside. He also upheld Mrs L s complaint about the manner in which the Council had considered Mrs L s complaint both in terms of its timeliness and in relation to the substance of its response. The Ombudsman recommended redress to Mrs L in recognition of her time and trouble in pursuing her complaint. He also made a number of further recommendations to the Council; a review to ensure no other service users are at risk; an audit of referrals which accused NHS staff of abuse or neglect to ensure that these have been properly dealt with and; a reconsideration of the original investigation to correct the record and ensure that all relevant lessons have been learned. Case reference 21239

16 Various Other Upheld March 212 Complaint-handling Cardiff County Council Mr S and his mother were injured when the casing of a roller shutter fell on them. Mr S asked Cardiff City Council ( the Council ) to investigate the incident. The Council subsequently advised Mr S that the investigation found there was insufficient evidence to take forward a criminal prosecution against the owner of the premises. Mr S was dissatisfied with the investigation and he made a complaint to the Council about it. Between July 21 and May 211, Mr S corresponded with the Council about the matter. Mr S said he was not satisfied with the Council s responses. In September 211, Mr S complained to the Ombudsman that the Council had mishandled the investigation and that it had also failed to deal with his subsequent complaint about the investigation. The Ombudsman s investigation identified that the Council acted as the Enforcing Authority on behalf of the Health & Safety Executive ( the HSE ). Enforcing Authorities ( EAs ) are required to follow HSE s Enforcement Policy Statement ( the EPS ). The EPS provides EAs with discretion when deciding which incidents to investigate, whether to take enforcement action and whether to prosecute. The Ombudsman's investigation did not find evidence that the Council s investigation failed to comply with the EPS or with its own policy and procedures. The Ombudsman did not uphold this element of the complaint. The Ombudsman's investigation identified that the Council failed to properly consider Mr S s letter of 3 July 21 as a complaint. However, in March 211, the Council apologised for the failure to provide a response to the July letter and it subsequently also provided detailed responses to Mr S s criticism of the earlier responses and actions. The Ombudsman concluded that the Council s failure to properly address the July letter was unsatisfactory. The Ombudsman partly upheld this element of the complaint. The Ombudsman reminded the Council of the need to ensure that all staff are fully aware of the Departmental and Corporate Complaints policies and procedures and the need to ensure that complaints are properly registered and responded to. Case reference February 212 Complaint-handling Cardiff County Council Mr A, a Member of Parliament, complained that Cardiff Council failed to respond to the specific matters referred to in representations he made on behalf of two of his constituents, and that the Council failed to respond to his formal complaints about how he had been dealt with. The Ombudsman found that there were severe and unacceptable delays in the Council s response to Mr A s correspondence. In particular, it took nearly 2 ½ years to answer three questions in Mr A s original letter. The Council also failed to recognise that Mr A wished to make a formal complaint about how he had been dealt with.

17 The Ombudsman upheld the complaints. He recommended that the Council should provide a further formal apology to Mr A; review the handling of correspondence in its Executive Office and Children s Services; and ensure that when people write to the Chief Executive, Leader or Executive Members expressing concerns, they are provided with details of the appropriate complaints procedure. The Council agreed to implement the Ombudsman s recommendations. Case reference