Showing posts with label Ombudsman Wales. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ombudsman Wales. Show all posts

Tuesday, 3 November 2026

Cyngor Gwynedd Council - 'Would You Like To Live Next Door To This?'

The Standards Committee of cyngor Gwynedd met on the 2nd, November, 2026.

The Annual Report of the Ombudsman for Wales, Michelle Morris, was presented.
Complaints against health boards have increased by 42% in the last year. 
Complaints against local authorities by 25% and housing associations by 27%.

Morris writes 'Looking beyond our office, many people still find it hard to complain to public service providers and there remain areas of public services in Wales where access to justice is incomplete'.

The PSOW does not give reasons why the public still find it hard to complain, nor does she mention how many variances to PSOW recommendations her office allowed public organisations after investigations are concluded. 

Are the same issues being investigated...?
How many new complaints are against organisations with the same or similar issues already investigated and upheld in past investigations?

Is the ombudsman still seeking robust evidence that its recommendations have been acted upon and lessons learnt?

The PSOW also investigates complaints against Councillors breaching the Code of Conduct.

Siôn Huws, Propriety and Elections Manager for cyngor Gwynedd has authored a report with summaries of the decisions received from the Ombudsman. His report - Allegations against members - can be found on page 191 of the agenda pack for the meeting here - 
https://democracy.gwynedd.llyw.cymru//documents/g5763/Public%20reports%20pack%2002nd-Nov-2026%2010.30%20Standards%20Committee.pdf?T=10

A reminder that the PSOW investigates town/community councillors as well as county councillors.

Complaints against councillors included - 
Summary of the complaint
The Member was alleged to have behaved inappropriately when she posted a photo of a garden showing signs of hoarding on Facebook and asked the public to comment on whether they could live next door. The Complainant felt that the person responsible for the hoarding issue could do with help and support, rather than the court of public opinion.

The ombudsman decided the the Plaid councillor Jina Gwyrfai, representing Yr Eifl, should not be investigated by concluding - 
While I fully appreciate that the Complainant may have been offended by the Member's post and feels that there may have been other ways of addressing the situation, the evidence provided does not indicate disgraceful or offensive behaviour that would affect the Code and justify intervening in the Member's right to political expression on this occasion.

But was the councillor's post a political expression..?
Some who saw it were of the opinion it was posted simply to humiliate a resident.

Another referral made to the Ombudsman - 
Summary of complaint
It was alleged that one of the members present at a meeting had breached the Code of Conduct ("the Code") by disclosing confidential information to the media. The complaint was made by one of the members present at the meeting asking the Ombudsman to investigate to establish which of the members disclosed the information. The complainant referred all members present, including herself, to the Ombudsman.

The ombudsman did not investigate saying -
(1) Whether there is evidence to suggest that there may have been breaches of the Code of Conduct. The Code is clear that members must not disclose confidential information or information which should reasonably be regarded as being of a confidential nature. 
The evidence provided by the Complainant suggested that the information discussed at a Council meeting ought to have reasonably been regarded as confidential. 
The evidence also suggested that this information was subsequently disclosed to the media. 
Having considered the information provided by the Complainant, I am not persuaded that there is evidence that identifies the Member as the specific individual who has disclosed the information and in the absence of evidence demonstrating that the Member was responsible for the disclosure, the Ombudsman cannot investigate. 
It may be helpful if I explained that the Ombudsman’s role is to consider and, when appropriate,undertake investigations of complaints that an individual member has breached the Code, rather than to independently establish the identity of the individual responsible for the disclosure.

 
Who decides what is and what isn't confidential information?
If this complaint concerns cyngor Gwynedd, then will it be the legal team that makes such decisions?

Could one say that the legal team is compromised by the amount of maladministration found by the PSOW in past investigations? Then there is the question of who the senior legal officer was that attended the safeguarding meeting in 2019, when a whistleblower raised concerns with Neil Foden?
Not forgetting the Canolfan Brynffynnon affair...

Siôn Huws, also presented the 'The Gifts and Hospitality Register for Members' report.
The solicitor writes - 
The Model Code of Conduct for Members makes it compulsory for members to provide written notification to the Monitoring Officer of any offer of a gift, hospitality material benefit or advantage above a value set by the authority and do so within 28 days. Gwynedd has decided that the value should be £25, and furthermore that such offers must be registered whether accepted or not.

 

Why has Huws allowed the recipient of the tickets for the Wales Women's International football matches not to disclose their value?

Something is very wrong within Gwynedd council...



Wednesday, 15 February 2023

The Problem Is Systemic...PSOW - Cyngor Gwynedd Council.

The Ombudsman for Wales investigation(s) into cyngor Gwynedd social services has changed nothing but revealed much -  the legal process to challenge a council's behaviour and its social care policies is broken...

The optics after years of dealing with these officers are that there is no such thing as an independent anything in Gwynedd. The investigators are employed by the SS senior complaints manager - who is also the senior safeguarding and quality officer. The two roles are not compatible and could be considered bad practice...

Some investigators are not as 'independent' as they should be - one is perceived as acting against one complainant and sabotaging her own investigation by not wishing to interview a witness and producing an unacceptable 'remit' for investigation. Shameful...

Social workers, tasked by their managers to fake assessments on disabled children. 'We are here to help''' They are most definitely not...

It is not just the ignorance of law and policies and procedures that has been revealed. It is the culture of cover up and pushback when challenged. Council officers have presented evidence to official investigations that is false and misleading, complainants have been smeared and the councillors lied to.

Then there are the official reports written by the officers in the course of their duties...

Concerns to the integrity of these reports and the issue of data manipulation have been raised but shut down by the same officers who write the reports. One wonders if they were still presented to the Sir Hugh Morgan review as accurate? Then again it is the only data they have...

The Ombudsman wrote to express its own frustrations with officers (more than once) and bemoaned that its  recommendations are not legally binding merely a 'gentleman's agreement'. So they lied to you, too...?

The same regulator who has literally had a front row seat into the disingenuous nature of these officers - over many years - seemed genuinly upset when officers yanked its chain, too. The PSOW was warned...

A CEO renaging on agreements after long and costly investigations is contemptible...
Why the Ombudsman did not instigate further action after the behaviour of the senior officers is not clearly understood as this could amount to risk to the council and a matter for the council's insurers.

When one department can persuade another department's manager to investigate an issue (that had already been been investigated and upheld) and produce a report in spite of the evidence the problem is systemic...

Whilst evidence of this did not make the Ombudsman's 'remit' to investigate, the Ombudsman was clearly unimpressed with the SS department's complaint officers and ordered retraining in their statutory duties.

So the same people responsible for the culture are now tasked with changing the culture.
How's that going...?





 


 



 

 


 

 



 


 

 

 

 


 

 


Monday, 13 January 2020

An Ombudsman,Cyngor Gwynedd Council And Compliance.

With regard to the recommendations from two Ombudsman for Wales Investigation reports into Cyngor Gwynedd Children's Department. 

The Chief Executive, Dilwyn O Williams, confirmed to Cyngor Gwynedd Care Scrutiny Committee, held on the 14th November, 2019, that all recommendations had been met and goes on to mention a 'miscommunication' with the Ombudsman - amongst other things.

We rang the Ombudsman for Wales seeking clarification of the officer's comments.

The Ombudsman for Wales informed us that that statement from the Chief Executive regarding compliance was not correct - at that time - but could comment no further until viewing the webcast.

Nearly two months have passed since the meeting between the Ombudsman and the CEO, in Cardiff, to discuss (non) compliance in regard to recommendations regarding assessments and retraining of officer's. Already long overdue.

The Ombudsman for Wales has, we notice, without delay issued special reports when other Councils have failed to address recommendations and improvements. 
                                            ****************************

Another Ombudsman's Investigation into Gwynedd SS Adult Department, dated 2018 - Case number - 201700388 led to the following recommendation -   

Undertakes a review of its ASD procedures, specifically those for adults and children with high functioning ASD, and ensure that the requirements of the SSWA 2014, MHM 2010 and ASD SAP have been met.

A recent FOI request to the Ombudsman for Wales has provided evidence that the Council, at that time openly admit to not yet carrying out this review, thus NOT ensuring that the Council was and is even now meeting the requirements of the SSWA 2014 , MHM 2010 and the ASD SAP.
Regardless of this, the Ombudsman then signed off on compliance, we do not know if such a review has since been undertaken.
                
This case - involved untrained council officer's behaving in a way that caused injustice(s) to and impacted on the human rights of a 'high functioning' autistic adult with mental health issues, features in the Ombudsman's casebook on Equality and Human Rights 2019/20 -

Copy and paste the address into your browser.
https://www.ombudsman.wales/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/104483-Equality-and-Human-Rights-Casebook_Eng_v03.pdf

Whilst this case is reported by the Ombudsman for Wales, it is concerning that this Report, published in 2018, has still not (to our knowledge) been presented to either Full Council, Cabinet or even the Care Scrutiny Committee.




Ultimately, responsibility for the organisational culture within the Council lies with the Monitoring Officer and also with elected members.

"The Monitoring Officer has a statutory responsibility to ensure that the Councils operates in a lawful manner and that it does not do anything which could amount to maladministration."

From -  "Do we have to accept it, Dilwyn", one councillor asked in response to the recent Wales Audit Improvement Report, critical of Gwynedd Council and how it dealt with its Youth Service cuts, through to Councillors and Cabinet Members who have no wish to examine evidence of maladministration.

Cabinet Members who fail to present critical reports of their departments for scrutiny.

Senior managers who bully and overwhelm an Independent Investigating Officer to remove critical references and recommendations for improvement of the Children's Department in her final, final, final report.

The Council's own report of their data breach that manipulated our evidence to whitewash its failings and create essentially an inadequate report. An earlier blog gives more detail - 
https://gwyneddsfailingcouncil.blogspot.com/2018/09/cyngor-gwynedd-councils-report-into.html

A social worker who misled an Independent Investigating Officer and Independent Person, during the Stage 2 Complaint investigation into her inadequate assessment of an autistic child's needs - we have evidence that senior managers and also the Director of Gwynedd Social Services were aware of this and re-wrote their response letter accordingly to cover this up.

A Monitoring Officer who mentions that there will be 'implications' and 'consequences' to a complainant, if that complaint is to proceed in the way they wish, then repeatedly failing to respond and explain to the complainant what those 'implications and consequences' would be when asked. 

A disabled social worker, who claimed disability discrimination and bullying by her senior managers within the Children's Department was suspended for two and a half years. The Employment Tribunal found against Gwynedd Council.
The Tribunal Report can be found here -

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5cf61dd7e5274a0771578036/1600022.2017_Mr_S_Parry_v_Gwynedd_Council_-_CORRECTED_JUDGMENT_AND_REASONS.pdf

How many Cyngor Gwynedd employees has this Council suspended for protracted periods of time and why ?

It would be interesting to have the thoughts of the Union representatives on such matters. 

Something is very wrong within Gwynedd Council.