'Virtual' Locations And 'Hotdesking' In Gwynedd And North Wales.

Another article written by Gwynedd and Anglesey Local Democracy Reporter, Gareth Wyn-Williams has certainly raised eyebrows in North Wales.

From the excellent article which can be found here - https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/eyebrows-raised-what-schools-agency-18716183
Copy and paste the web address into your browser.


Auditors say they can't rule out that a school improvement service allowed its staff to change which offices they worked from so they could boost their mileage expenses claims.

GwE changed its policies at the same time that rules were tightened up for council workers. The new rules meant staff would only be able to claim for distances beyond that which they would normally travel to get from home to work.

When the changes came in, GwE allowed staff to choose that the office nearest to their homes should be their official workplace.

That meant that the point at which they could begin claiming mileage expenses was lowered.

While the council's decision to change the rules was aimed at saving around £290,000 a year, GwE - which is funded by North Wales authorities - saw its expenditure increase between 2017 and 2019.

The audit report states: "A number of staff had wished to change their official work location to the nearest offices to their homes.

"The fact that this may have happened in response to the change in policy and the effect this has on officers' travel costs, rather than for practical reasons for GwE, cannot be ruled out.

"This is based on the fact that officers’ travel claims suggest that there has been no change to their day to day working arrangements, but the changes have obviously impacted on officers' travel costs by reducing the element they have to subtract from their claims, as well as enabling officers to claim for travel beyond their new, official location."

An audit also found that mileage claims were not being checked properly, leading to one instance where an 800 mile claim submitted for an 80 mile journey was processed before the mistake was found.

Noting that the nature of their work meant that GwE staff had to regularly visit schools or to the various offices across North Wales, it added: "Among the discussions to change official work locations, it was discovered that GwE had tried to move some staff to ‘virtual’ locations, as they did not have offices in the locations staff wanted to move to.

"Nearby hotdesking facilities were eventually used as an official place of work as a physical location is required for the system.

 "Again this has the effect of enabling the officer to claim travel expenses (and time, if relevant to the terms of the job) for any journey that exceeds the distance from home to this official place of work."

The report concluded: "Whilst reviewing officers' travel claims, it appears that those who have changed their official work location have benefited financially, whether by claiming for the journeys they make to their usual place of work, or by reducing the loss associated with the distance from home to their official work location - or a combination of both.

"GwE's Value for Money Policy states that 'although internal audit has a primary responsibility for assessing the internal control system, the internal auditors are frequently well placed to assess and comment on VFM in the areas reviewed'.

"To this end, Internal Audit cannot provide assurance that value for money has been taken into account when changing work locations."

Responding to the report during Thursday's committee meeting, Cllr Paul Rowlinson suggested: "To me the main failing is the revelation that staff are allowed to choose their official place of work and that some may do that, not to fairly reflect where they truly work but to boost the amount they are permitted to claim back.

"Are they paying income tax on that? And if this is happening on a wide basis then it raises concerns over the culture and reminds me of the issue surrounding Parliamentary expenses in 2009, which may have been within the law but didn't look right to people looking in from the outside."

A council officer also conceded that it could be seen as "odd" that GwE amended many staff's official workplaces on the same day that Gwynedd's stricter guidelines were introduced, adding that the authority's HR department had attempted to challenge GwE on the decision.

In response, a GwE spokesperson said: "In reviewing the policy change regarding travel costs GwE worked closely with the relevant officers at Gwynedd council and the Directors of Education of the six Authorities across North Wales to secure agreement that the regional service remained effective and efficient and embed the policy change in a regional context.

"Following the policy change GwE staff are not claiming travel costs from their homes."

A Cyngor Gwynedd spokesperson added that while concern had been raised that some managers at GwE were not, at the time of the audit, consistently checking the reasonableness and accuracy of mileage claims by GwE staff, management had since agreed to implement these steps.

 https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/eyebrows-raised-what-schools-agency-18716183

Article ends.

As Gwynedd Council is the leading council in respect of the finance and accountancy service for the Joint Committee, it is Gwynedd Council’s responsibility to complete the financial statements.

Gwynedd Council has been appointed as host authority in implementing and maintaining the service, and the Joint Committee of all the partners oversees the management of the service.

The accounts for the GwE Joint Committee from 2013/14 to the present date can be found here -
https://www.gwynedd.llyw.cymru/en/Council/Performance-and-spending/Budgets-and-finance/Statement-of-Accounts/GwE-Joint-Committee.aspx

Is this fraud ?

The Audit and Governance Committee webcast in relation to GwE and other matters can be found here along with the agenda packs that include the reports - 
https://gwynedd.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/502648

The sidenote alongside the webcast that informs 'An agenda has not been published for this meeting.' is not correct.

For those interested the agenda pack and relevant reports can be found here -
https://democracy.gwynedd.llyw.cymru/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=136&MId=4129&Ver=4

 

                                   

Cyngor Gwynedd Council - “extraordinary”, “ill-conceived”, and “emphatically wrong”.

Cyngor Gwynedd Council recently lost yet another Employment Tribunal. This case involved the Council dismissing two local school teachers.

So the Council appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal in London - and lost again.

The full judgment can be found here - Copy and paste the address into your browser.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5ed79310e90e0754cd08d6c4/Gwynedd_Council_v_Shelley_Barratt_and_Other_UKEAT_0206_18_VP.pdf

Below are extracts from the judgment. 
My emphasis in bold.

The Claimants were dismissed for redundancy following the closure of the school where they worked. They were unsuccessful in applying for positions at a new school that opened at the same location. The Tribunal held that the dismissals were unfair because of the failure to provide the Claimants with a right of appeal, the absence of consultation and because of the manner in which they were required to “apply for their own jobs”. 

The Respondent local authority appealed on the grounds that the Tribunal had erred in its approach to the assessment of fairness under s.98(4) of the 1996 Act in that it had treated guidelines as to what an employer should do in a redundancy dismissal as inflexible legal requirements; and had failed to take account of the particular limitations on the Respondent’s role in relation to recruitment at a maintained school.

8. On 18 August 2017, the chairperson of the Governing Body of School 1, Mr Siencyn, wrote to the Claimants’ representative apologising for the fact that no opportunity to make representations or appeal had been given. 
However, Mr Siencyn went on to say that the failure to allow an appeal did not cause any disadvantage to the Claimants and that the appeal would have made no difference as the dismissals were caused by the closure of School 1,which was something that no appeal panel would have been able to reverse so as to avoid dismissals. 

The Tribunal found that the assertion by the chair of the Governing Body of School 1 that denying the Claimants their right of appeal did not cause any disadvantage was “extraordinary”, “ill-conceived”, and “emphatically wrong”. 

6.An appeal is ingrained in principles of natural justice and, although I do not say that the absence of an appeal would render every dismissal unfair, I do determine that it requires truly exceptional circumstances to refuse an employee the right to appeal against their dismissal. Such exceptional circumstances do not exist in this case, particularly where the Claimants have a statutory and contractual right of appeal. It was substantively and procedurally unfair to deny the Claimants in the case the right of appeal. Furthermore, no reasonable employer would refuse to consider an appeal in circumstances where an employee had a clear right of appeal. 

37.Mr Siencyn was also wrong in his contention that the claimants’ appeals would have challenged the closure of the school. Both he and the Respondents conflate the closure of [School 1] with the inevitable dismissal of the claimants. The claimants were merely 2 teachers of many. They had never complained about the reorganisation of educational provision in general nor the decision to close [School 1].There is no factual basis to support the contention that the Claimants were opposed to the reorganisation affecting their school. Indeed they cooperated with the Governing Bodies by applying for their jobs/substantially similar jobs in the new school. It is a fiction (and indeed disingenuous) for Mr Siencyn to say what the claimants appeal would have been about without asking them. The vast bulk of teachers were not dismissed and were able to continue their employment with the respondent as (sic) the new school.

 39. Threatening to dismiss staff and compelling them to apply for their own jobs or similar jobs ignores years of jurisprudence on dealing with potential redundancy situations. It abrogates the employer’s responsibilities and seeks to circumvent employment rights. Mr Adkins submitted that the appeals would have challenged the Respondent’s approach to this reorganisation/redundancy and this was something that Mr Siencyn should have allowed. 

From the original Tribunal hearing -

41.... Some processes adopted by the employer are so unfair and so fundamentally flawed that it is impossible to formulate the hypothetical question of what would be the percentage chance the employee had still been dismissed even if the correct process had been followed: see Davidson v Industrial Marine Engineering Services Ltd EAT/0071/2003. This is an instance where the breach of a proper process was fundament (sic) and profound. I am not prepared to make a Polkey deduction in such circumstances.
                                                      
                                                    ********************


The school in question, Ysgol y Gader, had long been dogged by claims of poor management and heavy absenteeism of teachers leading to poor educational standards.

On the 15th March,2014, the Daily Post published an article with the subheadline - 
'Governors raise concerns over the number of experienced staff who have recently left the Dolgellau school and parents have signed a petition.'

It continued - 
One of the main concerns are pupils  complaining of not having formal lessons and being taught by classroom  assistants.
There are also concerns about the  number of experienced staff who have  recently left the school, and claims of a  culture of “overbearing management”  causing “a serious issue with staff morale”.

The full article can be found here - 
https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/gwynedd-ysgol-y-gader-pupils-6835574


The Daily Mail also reported on March, 27th - 

• Parents at Ysgol y Gader school, Wales, created petition about absent staff
• Meeting arranged and staff absenteeism was put at the top of agenda
• But headteacher Peter Maddocks was not present - and is now not at work
• One parent said: 'The meeting was a farce. Someone needs to step in'

Cllr Dyfrig Siencyn, chairman of governors at Ysgol y Gader said: 'The governing body recognises that there are concerns regarding staff absenteeism at Ysgol y Gader during the current academic year.

From the parent's petition - 
We believe that the school is failing to provide suitably-qualified staff to cover lessons during long-term staff absences, which leads to a lack of consistence and rigour in the standard of teaching and learning.

The full article can be found here - 
 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2590885/School-fire-high-levels-absent-teachers-holds-public-meeting-discuss-issue-head-fails-attend.html

Ysgol y Gader was closed in 2017 and replaced by a 3-16 all-through, super school, Ysgol Bro Idris.

Dyfrig Siencyn is now leader of Gwynedd Council.

Autism - The Ombudsman For Wales And Cyngor Gwynedd Council.

On the 4th July, 2018, the Ombudsman for Wales published a Report into the case of an autistic individual and his mistreatment at the hands of Gwynedd Adults SS department.

The Report can be found here -
 http://www.lukeclements.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Ombudsman-Gwynedd-Council-report-201700388.pdf

The Ombudsman for Wales Investigating Officer in this case was a Beverley Allen.

Her report is truly shocking especially when you consider some of the points highlighted -

"Mr A would seek reassurance from, or be influenced by, those present when responding,which meant that he would readily agree to an action without understanding what had been discussed or its impact".

Would those actions include asking the client whether he really wanted these services ?

Being in a Residential Home, this person would have had a key worker, assigned by the home's care team to support him during his assessment and guide him through the process.

From the I/O's report -

"Instead, the Residential Home re-allocated a significant portion of Mr A’s support hours to bridge gaps in its staffing needs".

A private, residential home used the client's taxpayer funded, commissioned hours to cover for their own staffing problems.

At least, we now know why there was no-one to support the person when his care plan was being deleted before his eyes....

Oh yes - no need to worry - of course we care - just sign here.

All support gone with the person being left to rot in bed.

In the Ombudsman's report, the I/O states -

69.In my view, these failings not only caused Mr A a significant injustice but also impacted upon Article 8 of his Human Rights.11 However, I have decided that the finding I have made of maladministration is so clear and so serious that to consider the human rights issues further would add little value to my analysis or to the outcome. I have therefore decided to say no more about that.

To my knowledge, the Cabinet Member for the Adults SS, Dafydd Meurig, has still not presented this report for scrutiny by Councillors and the public. Why not ?

Five Ombudsman Reports in four years critical of policy and behaviour of both Gwynedd Adults and Childrens departments. One in which a vulnerable person died.
.
The Officer for the Ombudsman, Beverley Allen, also recommended improvement in the areas in which the Council had so obviously failed and her recommendations were accepted by the Council in full.

These included -

81 (f) Reviews its process on monitoring commissioned services for adults.

(g) 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.

(h) Undertakes an audit of its ASD trained officers, identifies any shortfall and arranges appropriate training within the following 12 months.


Due to the disingenuous nature of some Councils behaving with little regard for Law and Government agencies, the Ombudsman is meant to have a robust system to check that Councils actually keep to their word after long and costly investigations.

It is usual for the Investigating Officer, in this case, Beverly Allen, to ensure that LA's implement the Recommendations. The I/O's  know best the issues raised and have sighted all evidence of the case in point. The Ombudsman's policies ask for proof that the improvements have been completed and in the agreed timescale.That is to include proof of Council committee meetings when policy change is needed.

Whilst the Council agreed to undertake the review and ensure that the requirements of the SSWA 2014, MHM 2010 and ASD SAP have been met within the agreed timescale - there is no evidence that the Council have kept to their word.

Why has the Ombudsman for Wales robust procedures not picked up on this failure by the Council ?

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.

More on that here - https://gwyneddsfailingcouncil.blogspot.com/2020/01/an-ombudsmancyngor-gwynedd-council-and.html

Regardless of this, the Ombudsman then signed off on compliance, we do not know if such a review has since been undertaken, nor if the requirements of Law have been met.
               
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.

Is the complainant Mrs X aware, that after surviving the Gwynedd Council Complaints Procedure then to bring a case to the Ombudsman for Wales which highlights apalling behaviour by council officers, that the recommendations in her son's case were not complied with as agreed to.

In the Ombudsman's casebook he rightly points out that the issue of people's Human Rights being trampled on by Government agencies must stop.

Joe Public can not do that alone, Mr Bennett.

It would be interesting to have the thoughts of the actual Investigator in this case.

Something is very wrong within Gwynedd Council.

Cyngor Gwynedd Council Covid19 Confusion Over Payment Criteria

The recent opinion article, dated 7th May, 2019 by Dafydd Meurig, Deputy Leader of Cyngor Gwynedd Council in Nation.Cymru is highly critical of Welsh Government's performance during the Covid19 crisis.

https://nation.cymru/opinion/a-shambolic-welsh-government-have-offered-no-leadership-for-local-government-in-this-crisis/

Gwynedd Council's deputy leader writes that delivery of the original testing regime was 'farcical' and involved sending 15 names of symptomatic employees to Data Cymru who then send the names to Public Health Wales who would then send the names to BCUHB (in this case) for them to arrange testing with each individual.

These tests were then 'to be driven to Cardiff for analysis'. Public Health Wales would then send the results to Data Cymru to send the results to the Local Authority to inform the person of the result.

Farcical indeed if true.

Mr Meurig goes on to complain about second home owners and says that £18 million from Welsh Government would have found their way into 'the pockets of some second home owners, who live outside the area'. Adding -

'Cynically some of these second home owners have flipped their property over to the Business Rate system in order to avoid paying any Council Tax at all'.

'The drawn-out discussions and delay has resulted in thousands of genuine holiday businesses having to wait weeks for their payment'.


But two weeks previous on the 24th April, the Leader of Cyngor Gwynedd Council,  Dyfrig Siencyn is quoted in the North Wales Chronicle.

“We are pleased that the minister has listened to us and changed the business guidelines available to support small rural businesses in Gwynedd and other counties across Wales,” said Cllr Siencyn.

The government’s new guidance states that three specific clauses need to be adhered to:

Self-catering accommodation produce two years of trading accounts to 31 March 2019

Self-catering accommodation must let the property for 140 days or more in the financial year 2019-20

Self-catering accommodation business must be the primary source of income for the owner (minimum threshold is 50%).

He adds -

“Whilst we did not agree with the exact wording of the changes to the guidelines, we’re confident that the changes will mean that no second home owner will be able to claim this grant money without presenting evidence that the majority of their income derives from the property.


Why was the Deputy Leader not informed of the successful change to the guidelines before publishing his article two weeks later. Has the confusion amongst Members led to any delay in payments to local businesses ? How many payments have been released so far ?

For the full article copy and paste the address into your browser -
https://www.northwaleschronicle.co.uk/news/18403296.welsh-government-shuts-second-home-grants-loophole/

Dafydd Meurig, is also Cabinet Member with responsibility for  Gwynedd Council's Adult SS.

 

Early Day Motion-No Confidence-Cyngor Gwynedd Council.

Just come across this House of Commons Early Day Motion into a review of Cyngor Gwynedd Council. It is twenty years old but some may still recognise the issues.

Tabled 01 December 1999.

1999-00 Session

That this House congratulates the District Audit on its damning Review of Grant-Funded Economic Development Schemes of Gwynedd Council, published in November 1999 and reported to the Wales Office (Office of the Secretary of State for Wales); deplores the actions of Plaid Cymru members of the Council criticised in the Review for not declaring their interests in companies of which they were directors when discussing the allocation of public funds to those companies; further notes the failure of a Plaid Cymru councillor to fulfill his statutory obligation to register directorships of companies; notes the many further irregularities disclosed in the Review and, recognising that Gwynedd is included in the area awarded Objective 1 status secured by a Labour Government, believes that decisive action is required by the Council because, in the words of the District Audit, 'it must now ensure it has adequate arrangements in place to ensure that value for money is obtained from Objective 1 investment and the highest standards of probity are maintained'; and calls on the said Plaid Cymru councillors to resign and for the Council urgently to implement the recommendations of the Review, failing which this House believes the public will not have confidence in Gwynedd Council.

The primary sponsor of this motion was Betty Williams, MP for Conwy (1997 - 2010) and was supported by many politicians, some are still MP's today.

The motion and its sponsor's can be found here -
 https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/19132

Copy and paste the address into your browser.

This was only three years after the old Council was wiped away after the North Wales child abuse scandal  -
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Wales_child_abuse_scandal

When a Social Worker, Alison Taylor, took her concerns to a Gwynedd County Councillor (would that be a Corporate Parent?)  she was sacked -
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/alison-taylor-woman-who-blew-the-whistle-on-abuse-breaks-her-silence-8348387.html

Employment laws will mean that Gwynedd Council can not easily sack those officers who do raise concerns.

So how do senior managers today deal with concerns regarding and raised by Council employees ?
Do they just suspend them on full pay - for years ?

Something is very wrong within Gwynedd council.

Cyngor Gwynedd Council SS Cuts Challenged By It's Own Care Scrutiny Committee.

What a difference a year makes in the life of a Cyngor Gwynedd Care Scrutiny Committee.

The english feed is now working for the meeting of the 14th November and can be found here -
https://gwynedd.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/454056

Last year, concerns had been raised with the Committee before the meeting and one councillor was  contacted by phone to ask if he wished to see evidence of our claims.
"Er..No" was the reply.

As both Cabinet Member, Dilwyn Morgan and the author of that years report, Dafydd Paul, told the Committee they were not willing to discuss individual cases no scrutiny was permitted of the maladministration found within the department they both have responsibility for.

Mr Paul proceeded to ignore the elephant in the room and began a diatribe how he had been working on the Council's Complaints Procedure for years - even referring to it as 'his baby'.

For why ? Welsh Government have done all the hard work by publishing the Complaints Procedure and Guidelines that all Council's are expected to uphold and adhere to.

How very different this year.

The Scrutiny committee, with a new Chair, Dewi Wyn Roberts, challenged the Services proposed social services savings - including 2 #MentalHealth posts, #CarersSupport  and #WomensAid, to name a few.

Then came the questioning of the Complaints Manager, Dafydd Paul. 

This years Annual Complaints Report, I believe, was authored by the Head of the Service, Marian Parry Hughes and presented to Cabinet in the summer.

Mrs Hughes was present at the meeting but left shortly before her Report was scrutinised. Surely she should have been answering questions as it was her Report ?

Maybe too embarrassing ?

The Ombudsman upheld the complaint that the Children's Department had interfered with an Independent Investigation and that the IO reported feeling 'overwhelmed' and 'bullied' at a meeting that Marian, herself, chaired, in order, the managers said, to 'correct inaccuracies'.

The Ombudsman commented the council provided NO evidence of these 'inaccuracies' when asked.

There is a post from June covering that meeting in more detail here -  https://gwyneddsfailingcouncil.blogspot.com/2019/06/bullying-cyngor-gwynedd-council.html
Copy and paste the address into your browser.

It was a meeting that we asked to attend but Dafydd Paul refused us. The Independent Person  - appointed to oversee the interests of the child - was not in attendance at this meeting either.

Now the Investigator had  contacted the Ombudsman with her concerns and asked for advice.
The Ombudsman did not advise.

Luke Clements,  Professor of Law and Social Justice at the School of Law, Leeds University who has had conduct of many cases before the European Commission and Court of Human Rights highlighted this particular case and his thoughts can be found here -

http://www.lukeclements.co.uk/omg-will-it-never-end-2/


The Adults Social Services Complaints Handling Report was finally presented to a meeting that had, according to the agenda, overrun by two hours.

No mention of the appalling 2018 Ombudsman's Report into the mistreatment of an autistic adult and his family by Gwynedd Adults Social Services - case number - 201700388.


Something is so very wrong within Gwynedd Council.

Cyngor Gwynedd Council And Their Problem With Autism.

So what was in the 'Independent' Report that Cyngor Gwynedd Children's Department felt the need to 'overwhelm' and 'bully' the Investigator to change ?

Four possibly five pages are missing from the original Investigation Report and where the original upheld all parts of our complaint - as did the second - the third version did not.

This part related to the inadequate assessment of an autistic child's needs undertaken and questioned the ability and professionalism of the social worker involved.

Our complaint also involved one officer responsible for mishandling and censoring our personal data but that customer care officer left the Council before being interviewed by the Investigators.

That officer then rejoined the Council after the Interviews had been completed.

The social worker on the other hand simply misled lied to the Independent Inverstigator and the Independent Person.

A Subject Access Request (SAR) reveals that senior managers were aware of the social worker's deception and covered for her, presumably to cover for their own failings. This social worker is now a 'team leader'

The Ombudsman for Wales was given this evidence but commented that they had not included it in their second (2019) Report as more serious issues were concentrated on, though this (we were assured) was not meant to trivialise the issues lied about.

To be fair the PSO Wales did comment that one officer's evidence was 'disingenous'.

There is a Care Scrutiny Committee meeting on Thursday the 14th, 2019, at which, the Social Services Annual Complaints Handling Report should be scrutinised.

It could be an interesting meeting as it is now known that there are, in fact, two Ombudsman for Wales Reports highly critical of the Children's Department and its failings, including causing injustices and possibly impacting on a family's Human Rights.

It should be of concern that the Children's Annual Complaint Report, authored by Marian Parry Hughes and presented to Cabinet in July, makes no reference to the failings found by the Ombudsman, nor the behaviour of the department heads and their treatment of an independent investigator.

The Complaints Report for Cyngor Gwynedd Adult SS is also on the agenda.

This, too is of interest as we await the Adult department's explanation of their treatment of an autistic young man and which the Ombudsman reported on, last year.

It makes for grim reading relating to assessors within the Adult Care field using the man's disability against him. Appalling.

The Ombudsman for Wales Report into that investigation can be found here -

http://www.lukeclements.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Ombudsman-Gwynedd-Council-report-201700388.pdf

Copy and paste the address into your browser.

The Mother of an autistic man with mental health issues raised a complaint on behalf of her son, on 6th of November 2015 and was unhappy with the Council's response on 19th of November 2015, so raised further concerns with the Council on 23rd of November 2015.

After the mother receiving a copy of her son's Care and Treatement Plan the mother submitted another complaint on 13th of December 2015.

A meeting was held with the mother and husband in January 2016 to discuss the complaint, but all concerns were not addressed properly at this meeting.

Following further reassessments and failure to implement her son's care plan and provide him with adequate support, the mother raised her complaint to Stage 2 on 15th of September 2016.

The stage 2 complaint was investigated by an Independent Investigator and concluded in November of 2016, but most parts of the complaint were not upheld.

Two recommendations were made, one of these was that the Council agreed  to 'improve the information on ASD on their website' - we note that they have done no such thing.

Documentation of this particular complaint and the details of it are absent in the Annual complaints Reports for the relevant periods, except for one mention in the 2016/17 report that mentions a stage 2 that will be available in the next quarter, even though the complaint had concluded months before, the Stage 2 was not included in the next Annual Report either for 2017/18.

The Mother then complained to the Ombudsman in April of 2017, yet the Annual Report covering that period states that no Stage 2 complaints had gone to the Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman's Report was completed on the 4th of July 2018, yet there is no mention of this Ombudsman's Report in the 2018/19 Annual Complaints Report, but it is stated that there were no Ombudsman's investigations undertaken during 2018/19, although this one was obviously still ongoing in 2018, this is not mentioned anywhere.

The case in question relates to failings of a man with 'high functioning autism' and the Ombudsman's Report is indicative of how Gwynedd treat such individuals. It makes for shocking reading, yet who is to know about such failings and maladministration if the details are omitted from the Annual Complaints Reports by Officers

The idea of the Annual Complaints Report is supposed to inform members, scrutiny commitees and the public what is going on within the Department and of any failings and lessons to be learnt. Sadly this case is yet another example of Gwynedd Council's lack of transparency and wish to be open and honest and as a result, no scrutiny of such horrendous failings will ever take place (as is usually the case)
The following is a small excerpt of the Ombudsman's Report, it speaks for itself.....

"69, In my view, these failings not only caused Mr A a significant injustice but also impacted upon Article 8 of his Human Rights.11 However, I have decided that the finding I have made of maladministration is so clear and so serious that to consider the human rights issues further would add little value to my analysis or to the outcome, I have therefore decided to say no more about that."

One of the Ombudsman's Recommendations that the Council agreed to was that Gwynedd Council, within 6 months of the final report (4th July 2018 ) -

 "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."


 So, Gwynedd Council....did you undertake that review within 6 months?

(Part of Gwynedd Council's Compliance correspondence with the Ombudsman for Wales)

Monday 11th March 2019

"Ymhellach i’r cais isod am wybodaeth, dyma’r gwybodaeth diweddaraf gennym am y sefyllfa o ran gwasanaeth ASD. Nid oes adolygiad penodol wedi bod ond mae hyfforddiant dwys wedi ei gynnal (ac yn y cynlluniau) yn y pwnc. Wedi paratoi ateb isod. Croeso i ti basio hwn ymlaen gan hefyd esbonio fod ddim adolygiad penodol wedi digwydd eto."

(Translation)
Further to the request below for information, here’s the latest information we have about the situation in terms of the ASD service. There has been no specific review, but intense training has been undertaken in the subject (and in the plans).I have prepared an answer below. You are welcome to pass this forward, by also explaining that no specific review has yet taken place.

"The staff delivering Learning Disability services are acutely aware of the increasing need for timely and effective provision of high quality services for people living with ASD. We have implemented an extensive training and awareness programme as evidenced by the Training Unit. In addition, we are proactive members of the North Wales Integrated Autism Service (details attached). We have also begun work to establish a new team within the Learning Disability service which will be taking a preventative approach to service delivery, with effective ASD provision being an integral part."


No....thought not. Have you since? Who knows? and what are your 'procedures' for dealing with high functioning autistic adults and children now? Do you even have such  procedures?

This recommendation specifically asks for the Council to address their procedures for dealing with 'high functioning autistics' but yet again the Council refer to what the Learning Disability Service is doing - this is not a service that is open to 'high functioning' autistics, so is irrelevent.....

The 'intensive training' mentioned is mainly PBS (7 sessions) and 'Indirect Support' ( 26 sessions) again this is the domain of the Learning Disability Service, though there are 'Autism Awareness'  days. ( 3 sessions) Hardly Intensive Training for those Social Workers and Officers dealing with high functioning autistic people.

In relation to the Ombudsman's 2019 investigation into our own case The Head of Children and Families Department states in her Annual Complaint Handling report of 2019, under 'lessons learnt', that -

"It is not a requirement for Social Workers to have any expertise in autism. Neither are they required to undertake autism training. Autism training is currently available to Derwen Service staff, but it is not open to the rest of the Department's officers. There was a strong view in the Ombudsman's final report that there was a need to raise awareness amongst all of the Department’s remaining officers, and therefore another lesson would be to ensure that autism training is available to all within the Children and Supporting Families Department."


Yet again the training given is for those that work with autistic individuals with a learning disability, not for the officers that will be the ones working with 'high functioning'autistic individuals. So Marian Parry Hughes have you any plans to provide autism training to all of the Department's Social Workers ?  More smoke and mirrors.....

The Reports of both department's are NOT an accurate record bearing in mind that there are now at least THREE highly critical Ombudsman's Reports, that Council Officer's would rather not explain or discuss and certainly do not want scrutinized.


One Councillor has already referred to one Ombudsman's Report into the Children's Department as 'damning'.

What would he make of the Ombudsman's Report into Gwynedd Council of July, 2018 ?

A young autistic man with other issues that was left to rot in bed after having support withdrawn.

Something is very wrong with Gwynedd Council Social Services....

Cyngor Gwynedd Council - Sorry Not Sorry.

The letter of apology from the Chief Executive of Cyngor Gwynedd, Dilwyn Williams, made me think of all the other Mea Culpa's we have received in the past four years.

We have not yet replied to Mr William's letter as we await confirmation that the 'recommendations' of the Ombudsman have been completed. Cyngor Gwynedd have a history of non compliance in this case, with 'recommendations' made by independent investigators and even those of the Ombudsman for Wales.

Gwynedd Council agreed to implement the Ombudsman's latest 'recommendations' within three months. Those three months are now up.

The CEO apologised for the failing to update a child's CIN plan - surely the responsibility for the Director of Gwynedd Social Services, Morwena Edwards. But the apology from the CEO may be more sincere considering it took Mrs Edwards 5 months to officially respond to our Stage 2 complaint - badly. The Ombudsman for Wales 2019 Report calls her decision to then reverse her thinking after the publication of the Ombudsman's 2018 Report 'illogical'.

There has also been an apology from Head of Children and Families, Marian Parry Hughes.

Once again, the sincerity of this apology is in question as Mrs Hughes was the most senior manager at the meeting with the Independent Investigator who reported she felt 'overwhelmed' and 'bullied' after completing her investigation.

Mrs Hughes also played a major part in the case of a Gwynedd social worker in which the social worker raised bullying by her manager, at a recent Employment Tribunal - the case 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

Copy and past the address into your browser.

This Tribunal makes mention of Sharron Williams Carter -  who was also in attendance at the meeting with the Independent Investigator of our Stage 2 complaint.

Sharron Williams Carter was also the senior officer tasked with carrying out the 'recommendations' from the Independent Investigation way back in 2010 that was highly critical of senior management. The 'recommendations' were not implemented.

Apologies from the CEO included him apologising on behalf of Melvin Panther. The same manager whose emails about us were censored and withheld. More on that here - https://gwyneddsfailingcouncil.blogspot.com/2018/09/cyngor-gwynedd-councils-report-into.html

Mr Panther was the manager of the disabled social worker who took Gwynedd  Council to the Employment Tribunal.

We have also received an apology from Senior Operational Manager, Aled Gibbard.

Mr Gibbard has also featured in this blog before - badly handling another complaint. More -
https://gwyneddsfailingcouncil.blogspot.com/2017/05/gwynedd-councils-secure-letterbox-not.html

Mr Gibbard was also present at the meeting in which the Investigator felt 'overwhelmed' and 'bullied'.

Delyth Davies - whose inadequate assessment of a child's needs was the main issue of the Stage 2 complaint was also present at this meeting.

Now the Ombudsman for Wales was given evidence that a social worker had lied to Investigators during the investigation and that the authors of the Directors response letter were aware of this deception.

A draft response letter that had Director, Morwena Edwards, asking the two authors - "What if the Ombudsman sees this..."

Marian Parry Hughes has just authored and presented to Council the Complaints Handling Report. Her Report makes nothing of her Department's annus horribilis. For her it is like nothing happened at all. Not even a nod in the direction of the Ombudsman who refers to the number of inaccurate references to legislation that she as Head of the Children and Families Department had made.

It is the same with the Director's of Social Services Annual Report 2019 - 'move along - nothing to see here'.
So how are County Councillors informed of the systemic failings found within Gwynedd Children and Families Department and their mishandling of complaints, year upon year ?

We have informed various committee members...and they choose to remain silent and do nothing.

What of Dilwyn Morgan, Cabinet member responsible for the Children and Families Department ? He has still not responded to us after being sent a copy of the Ombudsman's Report in June.
 
Something is so very wrong within Gwynedd council.

2019 Ombudsman Report On Cyngor Gwynedd Council Derwen Policy.

The Ombudsman for Wales makes comment on Gwynedd council's Derwen eligibility criteria.

 15. The Derwen policy document states that it is the team that ‘provides assessment, intervention and support for disabled children and young people with continuing needs as a result of disabilities or illness.’ It will support families, carers and the wider community in order to promote the health and welfare of disabled children. Derwen’s eligibility criteria sets out those who are eligible or ineligible, for its services. It says that those ‘with ADHD, but who are not disabled or have significant developmental delay’ are ineligible. It does not specifically mention Autism or other similar diagnosed conditions.

Those 'with ADHD, but who are not disabled or have significant developmental delay’are ineligible'.
Inclusive ? - I don't think so. I am not really sure what it even means.
 
The Ombudsman Recommends -

 70. The Council should review its Derwen policy to ensure its criteria aligns with the Social Services and Wellbeing (Wales) Act 2014 and the Equality Act 2010’s definition of ‘disability’, and ensure staff are informed about any changes (within three months).

71. The Council should (within three months) seek specialist input to develop a plan for dealing with future assessment and support requests from/for those suffering with Autism.

We were surprised at the Ombudsman's Recommendation in this respect - it was not part of our desired outcomes and though any review of Gwynedd council and its policies are welcome we are left wondering as to the why.

The Ombudsman employs specialist advisers who could have confirmed immediately whether Derwen's criteria was legal yet the council is asked to review its own policy.

Now I note the "...seek specialist input to develop a plan for dealing with future assessment and support..." but what of the children that have been failed by this department and its officer's for so many years ?

Our correspondence with the Ombudsman for Wales has included our thoughts on the second assessment of the child - only undertaken through a recommendation from a previous Investigation. We did relate the 'suggestion' from the social worker, that had been expressed during the Assessment and our horror and shock at her suggestion.

Both SW's were told that if they had 'suggested' that to a carer in any mental health setting that I knew of a managerial meeting would have been called and the SW reported.The other social worker present said he did not agree with the 'suggestion' but repeated 'it was only a suggestion'.

Was this the reason for the Ombudsman's finding and recommendations ? That it is so blindingly obvious to anyone independent looking at this council that there is a major problem with social workers and how they assess autistic children.

The social workers told us there were no autism services in Gwynedd. But they were both in my house to assess a child's eligibility for services ! How can a child be eligible for services that don't exist ? They can't obviously. Catch 22.

Unsurprisingly, the teen failed to meet the criteria threshold in this assessment(!) too. The SW's main reason was that he had helped cook rice with a teacher FOUR YEARS ago.

The SW's were asked what happens when he forgets he is cooking and walks off ? The SW's bowed their heads and mumbled sorry.

A complaint against this assessment was raised by the father last year - it has not been allowed to progress and is now 'out of time'.

Something is so wrong with Gwynedd council.

"OMG Will It Never End" - Cyngor Gwynedd Council.

A massive thank you to Luke Clements for highlighting our case. The full Ombudsman's Report can be found on his page - http://www.lukeclements.co.uk/omg-will-it-never-end/
From his blog -

It is not every day that an ombudsman’s report refers to an investigator’s note saying the above.  Not every day that the ombudsman: asks a council to reflect on its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights and the Equality Act 2010; refers to the number of inaccurate references a council has made to legislation; concludes that a council gave the impression that it was seeking to influence the outcome of an independent review of a complaint; refers to a council’s claim as being ‘disingenuous’.

For all our misgivings about the inadequate funding of the ombudsmen impairing their ability to hold councils’ to account[1] – the fact that reports of this nature emerge – revealing how some authorities operate in practice – is important.

Hopefully the local authority in question[2] will implement the ombudsman’s recommendations and take a long hard (and reforming look) at the organisational culture that allowed these deplorable events to occur.

In the next section we provide a résumé of the report and this is then followed by a reflective commentary by Paul Kelly – a highly experienced Independent Investigating Officer.
                                                            ________________

The investigation concerned a complaint by a family (Mr & Mrs A and their 16 year old son X), for whom the ombudsman had already (a year earlier) upheld a complaint relating to a connected matter.  Problems persisted and a further complaint was made alleging (among other things): that the council had failed to assess X as a disabled child; had failed to assess Mrs A (as a parent carer); and had inappropriately influenced the role of the Independent Investigation Officer (IIO).

The complaint was made on 25 May 2017 and related to assessment failures that occurred in September 2016.  These dates are important, as the events in question post-date that coming into force of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 (which occurred on the 6 April 2016).
The council had a policy, known as the ‘Derwen policy’, which stated – in effect – that children with ADHD, but who were not ‘disabled’ or did not have ‘significant developmental delay’ were ineligible for assessment / support as ‘disabled children’.  X had Autism and Pathological Demand Avoidance and although the Derwen policy did not specifically mention these conditions it is clear from the complaint, that the council also treated them in the same was as it treated ADHD.

The IIO investigated the complaints and in due course prepared a draft report which was overseen and approved by an Independent Person.  The draft report was shared with the council’s officers.  The officers were unhappy about the report – stating (among other things) that is was ‘very one sided’.  A meeting with the council was arranged and before this took place the investigator received a ‘flurry of documentation’ that she had not been shown during the investigation.

It was at this stage that the IP observed ‘Omg…will it never end’. The IIO was so troubled that she telephoned the Ombudsman’s Office for advice as to what to do at the meeting as (in her words) ‘it doesn’t seem right to me’.[3]

The IIO attended the meeting but had not anticipated being met by six senior council officers.  She felt ‘a bit overwhelmed’ and that she was being ‘bullied’. In this respect the ombudsman notes that there was an ‘imbalance in the number present at the meeting’ and that this was ‘sufficient to make her question, as she has, whether the independence of the process was being compromised’.   The council however stated that it was not seeking to influence the IIO into changing the report, ‘rather it wanted to make sure that “inaccuracies” were corrected’.  In this respect the ombudsman’s report concludes:

… the overall impression when viewed, objectively, is that the Council was unhappy with the findings. By acting as it did, it gives at least the impression that it was seeking to influence the outcome even though I have no hard evidence that this was its intention (bearing in mind it has denied such). However, that was how Mr & Mrs A saw it. Perception is often enough. On the evidence before me, bearing in mind the Council has not identified anything specific by way of ‘inaccuracies’, despite ample opportunity to do so, I find that it did act inappropriately.

The council refused to accept most of the recommendations in the final report (signed off by the IIO and the Independent Person) and in particular refused to undertake the recommended assessments of X and Mrs A.  In its opinion ‘X did not need care and support beyond that provided by his parents’ and that his needs did ‘not meet the criteria as a disabled child under the Equality Act 2000’.

Not only did the council get the year of the Act wrong – it also fundamentally misunderstood the law (not least – it seems – that the key Act was not the Children Act 1989 – as the material parts of this Act had been repealed by the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014).  X had a Statement of SEN; the Council had accepted (in an earlier ombudsman complaint) that he required a specialist Autism assessment; and X was in receipt of the highest level of the disability related benefit (PIP).  The ombudsman also observed (as had the IIO) that X’s ‘child in need plan’ had not been reviewed for some time and so questioned how the council could confidently say he was ‘not disabled or had no unmet needs’.

This report is incredibly troubling on many levels – not least that a local authority had so clearly failed to understand its legal obligations.  What is (to an outside observer) of most concern, is the level and nature of challenge experienced by the IIO.  We are well aware of families being fearful of the consequences of complaining – fearful of retaliatory action by authorities[4] – but for a local authority to behave in the way described by the ombudsman towards independent investigators is shocking.  Complaints’ investigators are acting on behalf of Chief Executives / council members.

For a culture to develop where such an investigator considers that she is being bullied and for the ombudsman to agree that the impression given was of a council seeking to influence the outcome of an independent review – strikes at the very heart of the review process.

Ultimately senior legal officers and council members are responsible for the organisational culture of their authority – and these officers / members should take a long hard look at this report.
____________

We wanted to know if this sort of action by a local authority was unique – or whether complaints’ investigating officers encountered this on other occasions.  We therefore asked Paul Kelly – an expert Independent Investigating Officer of over 14 years to comment on whether, in his experience, overt pressure of this kind was sometimes placed on investigators – and for his general comments on the shortcomings of the social services complaints process as it currently operates.
General information about the social care complaints’ process in Wales is provided on the Rhydian pages – click here to access this note.
                                                 _________________________

Personal reflections of Paul Kelly – Experienced Independent Investigating Officer.

I was lucky: the first local authority to take me on as an independent investigator in 2004 was the best of the twenty or so I encountered (until finishing this role in 2018). After many years in the probation service, I knew about writing reports, but not much about the world of social care. That first authority gave me a good grounding, including encouragement to make strong statements in my Stage 2 reports. The complaints manager knew her job inside out and was confident in her level of independence from social care structures. There was joint training with the local government ombudsman and with social care managers.

Much turned on the qualities of that complaints manager and I relied on her for advice and guidance. Not only that, reports did not get past her unless the arguments and quality stacked up: she never sought to influence findings. As a matter of routine there was a meeting with the adjudicating officer (i.e. the senior manager responsible for the local authority’s response to the complaint) after reports were submitted. Some probing was to be expected. Overall, it was a good thing: it kept me on my mettle and I had a reasonable sense of what the local authority was going to do about my findings and recommendations.

Even within that system there were some awkward moments but nothing serious, except perhaps when the authority did not want to accept a report I had written in Easyread (or as close as I could get to it). My view was that the report needed to be accessible to the person with learning disabilities who had made the complaint: the authority’s view was that the report should have been conventional but with separate interpretation for the complainant. My mistake was not discussing that properly with the complaints manager beforehand.

What if there is no complaints manager or if there is somebody in the role without the strengths of the manager I have described above? In my experience, only a handful came anywhere near the standards set in that first local authority, which in any case began to dismantle as austerity-driven cuts began and the manager left.

I have illustrated the good, what about the bad? Have I ever experienced anything as bad as the case discussed above? Yes, up to a point but not very often. One local authority tried to put a stop to an investigation I was carrying out. Among various machinations, they consulted their legal department about grounds for removing me as independent investigator and attempted to include a senior manager in our interviews with service delivery staff. The independent person objected to that and together we produced our reports that, in the end, a disgruntled head of service had to accept and agree. The independent person was heavily involved and enormously helpful: I concentrated on the complaints while he watched over the process, reporting on the heavy-handed and inappropriate actions of the authority. I had been on the point of taking the matter to the chief executive (complaints arrangement are under that person’s responsibilities) but we got through without needing to do that.

Why could this have happened? The complaints manager had recently departed. She and her staff had previously encouraged investigators to be thorough and probe hard but fairly. They did not like to re-employ investigators who produced half-hearted or poorly argued work. They were actively pursuing early resolution work and had nurtured a group of high quality independent persons. The good work of previous complaints managers unraveled when a new hardline regime of disruptors took charge, so creating confusion, misunderstanding and not a little mayhem. The independent person and I were among the first to feel the chill. 

Did we get any further work from that authority? I think the answer to that question will be obvious.
I could describe two further examples of local authorities that behaved badly. Both involved directors bypassing adjudicating officers, getting too heavily involved but ultimately having to give ground. Both instances also included newly appointed complaints managers who were administrators rather than complaints professionals. The role of the complaints manager is crucial, without one – or without a good one – I think it is far more likely that things will go wrong. Complaint investigations are often serious and complex: local authorities need steady hands on the tiller.

Out of my more than 90 enquiries, three featured overt attempts at undue influence by local authorities. I checked with a colleague who has much more complaints experience than I: we agreed that in the main, local authorities respected the independence of investigators and did not seek to influence findings and recommendations.

Thee overt attempts were three too many. I am inclined to think that covert influencing is more prevalent. Well-run independently focused complaints sections provided me with plenty of work. Those repeat commissions dried up when regimes changed. Was that anything more than coincidence?

With experience of a very well-run complaints section, I was used to having all records readily available and staff interviews arranged for me. Legal advice was available and training provided. It was a shock to do work elsewhere where nothing very much was made available and investigators had to go hunting for records. Typically there was no training and no legal advice despite some tricky legal questions being involved in an investigation. Interviews with staff were variable: some were very cooperative and came fully prepared, others were unprepared and vague giving apparent compliance and little more. I made notes of all meetings and they went to interviewed staff in draft form, but all too often without reply. More than once key staff who had moved on to different authorities refused to be interviewed, even though they had been centrally involved with the matter complained about. And social care records? I am afraid, criticising them could be no more than shooting fish in a barrel.

I have worked on Stage 3 review panels: they are, in effect, an appeals process for complainants dissatisfied with Stage 2 outcomes. Poor quality independent investigator reports have been a recurring feature. Examples have included: local authorities’ versions being too readily accepted; descriptions of legal positions being wrong; key complaints information being omitted; absence of meaningful analysis; reports being padded out with unnecessary narrative (20,000 words on occasion) and the investigator and independent person declining to look at relevant supporting material offered by complainants.
 

Why A Blog About Cyngor #Gwynedd Council ?

I feel it is time for a recap of the events that led to this blog being created.

The 2010 Independent Investigation - with all points upheld - was highly critical of Gwynedd SS and their management team in their treatment of an autistic child. But the recommendations of the Report were not acted upon and the child and family were ignored.

Our local MP, Liz Savile Roberts was contacted for help but her very good friend at the council, Marian Parry Hughes, intervened and Liz then ignored our request for a meeting to provide her with our evidence. Liz has continued to ignore our correspondence.

At the time, the child was on a CIN plan managed by a social worker whose attitude beggared belief, culminating in the social worker not bothering to turn up for a review of the child's case. A meeting that he, himself, had organised with parents and a teacher, letting them all down and wasting everybody's time.

A complaint was raised about his behaviour and that of the Head of Services. To say it was dealt with badly is an understatement and a Stage 2 complaint repeatedly refused. (The Ombudsman has since recommended that ALL officers involved in the complaint be given re-training in the Statutory Complaints procedure)

So I began to blog the story of how Gwynedd Council have behaved.

I have been careful to name only those officers who have behaved badly and deliberately not named one manager whom, I believe, had her arm twisted by more senior managers to misrepresent the Investigation of the censoring and mishandling of personal information and the Council's own data breach.

Gwynedd Adult services were recently lambasted by the Ombudsman for how they treated a young, autistic man. This case was only brought to the Ombudsman's attention because the Complaints department had refused to accept their complaint, also.
 
If those named would like the right to reply they have only to contact me. I am also willing to consider and/or publish their version of events if they so wish.

I would also like to thank those who have supported the family in our attempt to access services for 'high functioning' autistics and those children that continue to fall between the gaps in services.

Cyngor #Gwynedd Council - And The Other Reports..?

So Gwynedd Democratic Services were made aware of the Independent Investigator's Report and the issue with the council refusing to accept it, in January, 2018.

But what are Democratic Services and what do they do ?

It appears to be a service within the council that advises and caters to the questions and needs of council members - the councillors.

Democratic Services are also the office to contact for an English translation to be made available for webcast as all council business is conducted in Welsh.


The October, 2017 Report highlighted failings with the Children's department relating to social workers carrying out assessments through to Child In Need Plans and records not being properly maintained.

The Ombudsman for Wales Report, April, 2018 into Gwynedd council highlighted service failure and maladministration from 2010 to 2016 including withdrawing support before assessments that showed 'predetermination' i.e set up to fail.

The Investigation of the Data Breach and mishandling and censoring of personal information, in June.

An investigation that still leaves the legality of the two officer's actions in question. Worse when it is realised that the same two officer's were dealing with an Official Complaint at the time - badly.
So badly the Ombudsman 'recommended' retraining in the Statutory Complaints procedure for the officer's involved !!


So many Reports that have been brought to the attention of Audit, Care Scrutiny and Democratic Services over the last period.

The Care Inspectorate Wales Review was presented to Care Scrutiny at the Extra-ordinary Meeting held on the 6th November to much praise and backslapping from members.

This backslapping went on for so long that the meeting must have over run and the presenting CIW officer had to leave the meeting before it concluded.

The rush to get the Complaints Handling Report through before lunch was obvious.
There was no mention of the Department's annus horribilis regarding any of the above Reports nor the fact it has been sixteen months since the last annual Report.

Any pertinent questions that could/should have been asked were batted away by both Cabinet Member, Dilwyn Morgan and the author of the Complaints Report, Dafydd Paul, stating to the meeting they did not wish to discuss individual cases.

Wow...and what of the serious concerns raised ?
                                                 

The Care Scrutiny Meeting was also NOT webcast - much to one council member's quite obvious surprise.

A request had been put to Democratic Services for the meeting/webcast to be to be translated, we were informed that this meeting would not be webcast. After asking for an explanation an email was received stating that webcasting hours were limited and then another, saying that it was an extraordinary meeting and, as such, would not be webcast but a translation would be available for any members of the public who attended.

Very odd when all other council extraordinary Meetings were webcast !

A member of the public actually turned up for this meeting and visited Siop Gwynedd, in Caernarfon for directions. The meeting was not on their computers and no-one knew anything about it.

It was only due to those on the desk who asked and phoned around that the wherabouts of the meeting was eventually located.

The Annual Complaints Handling Report is a legal document that is used by the Council, and other organisations, as an indication of the Department's performance in carrying out its Statutory Duties.

This Report does no such thing.

And where are the Minutes of this Extra ordinary meeting of the Care Scrutiny Committee ?

We Then Emailed Cyngor #Gwynedd Care Scrutiny Committee.

Mention has already been made of Vera Jones, Democratic Services Manager, at Cyngor Gwynedd, who was CC'd into the email sent by Medwyn Hughes, in response to our email, that raised  concerns over the mishandling of our Stage 2  'Independent' Investigation.

Mr Hughes also CC'd the following people into a further email to us -

James Gareth Huw (CG)
Jones Luned Fon
Eryl Jones-Williams

Now I am not really sure who the first two are but Eryl Jones Williams is the Chair of the Scrutiny Committee. The same committee that all councillors, bar one, were sent the below email on the 10th Sept 2018 - 

Dear Care Scrutiny Committee Members

We write in regard to the Autism Report which is to be presented to the care scrutiny committee and to bring to your attention to our own case involving our 'high functioning' autistic (******)

The Reports makes no mention of the challenges that those with 'high functioning' Autism and their families face in day to day living and that they may require exactly the same kind of support that Autistic people with additional learning disabilities need to enable them to live any kind of  full and independent life. The report focuses solely on those with a Learning Disability only, disregarding and abandoning those who are deemed 'higher functioning'.

 

Gwynedd council have for years now been talking about those people who 'fall between the cracks' in terms of support and that things were in the pipeline to help.

 

The Report(s) show that the council have not lived up their promises as their Report states that no support is to be given without there being a Learning disability. Do the council not recognise Autism as a lifelong disability ?

 

This Council seem to have little regard for the various 'acts' that are in place to ensure that appropriate and adequate assessment and support be provided for autistic individuals, regardless of their intellectual functioning, i.e the 2014 care act, 2010 Equality Act, NICE guidelines

 

We are one of those families with a 'high functioning' autistic child (soon to be adult) and part of our story is below. Every time an Independent person looks at Gwynedd council and their treatment of ASD and their families, they understand the issues and find against the council.

 

In this case, every time that there has been an Independent Investigation of the facts, it shows that the Department has failed, in many respects and has little understanding of the needs, or the assessment needs of such individuals.

 

A Senior Manager from the  Department has stated that there are no specifically autism trained social workers in this area, how then can any comprehensive assessment of an autistic person's needs be carried out in this area ?

 

We think that there are serious issues in relation to the lack of support, poor handling and inadequate assessment of autistic people and their families by this Department.

 

Briefly, this family raised a stage 2 complaint in 2010 with all points of complaint upheld but no recommendations acted upon.

 

Since 2014 we have had to endure bad and unprofessional behaviour from social workers and senior managers culminating in a stage 2 complaint raised on the 25th May, 2017.

The 'Independent' Investigation highlighted serious failings and upholding or 'not requiring to uphold'  all points of our complaint. This was presented to the council in October, 2017.

Gwynedd council refused to accept the findings and the case is currently being investigated by the Ombudsman for Wales.

 

This is on top of the recent Ombudsman's Investigation report of April, 2018 into the department that highlighted maladministration and service failure in this case dating from 2010 through to 2016.

 

Also in June 2018 a Report by a Gwynedd Council Information Manager also upheld the part of our complaint that related to a data breach - involving the release, to us,  of the names of two children receiving services from the council and Youth Justice team and the local school in Bangor they attend and also stated that redactions made to our personal information should not have been carried out.
The full Report can be found here - https://gwyneddsfailingcouncil.blogspot.com/2018/09/cyngor-gwynedd-councils-report-into.html

 

We wish to meet with and share these various reports with any members of the care scrutiny committee that share our concerns and that have any interest in challenging this department's failings in regards to our case and to question/challenge this Department's lack of understanding and proper assessment and support for autistic people in general.

 

We as parent carers of a 'high functioning' soon to be 18 year old young (******) have been recently told by social workers that there are no autism services in this area, or even vulnerable adult services. We have no place to go to ask for specialist support and advice needed as our (******) reaches into adulthood.....

 

This should be a matter for scrutiny.

                                                    *****************************

 

We had not one reply.

 

So we emailed the Scrutiny Committee once more...but that is for another post.