Cyngor Gwynedd Council - Behind Closed Doors.

The social worker who won her Employment Tribunal against Cyngor Gwynedd Council worked at the  Dolgellau and Pwllheli offices of Cyngor Gwynedd Council.

MP is Melvin Panther a Manager within the Children's Fostering Service.
MPH is Marian Parry Hughes, Head of Gwynedd Children and Families Department.

Excerpts from the Tribunal's Report include -  

"The Tribunal did not believe MP’s evidence that in an email that only refers to the claimant by name and where each of the comments appears entirely and exclusively applicable to the claimant’s case, he was in fact referring to sickness absences throughout the team.

His oral explanation in evidence was contrary to the natural, logical reading of the email itself and he gave his evidence in an unconvincing way which was not credible in the circumstances.

These are allegations that MP was over zealous in his monitoring of the claimant’s attendance or absence from work with unnecessary referrals for Occupational Health advice specifically with a requirement for psychological assessment. 

The claimant was also assessed independently by the Access to Work Scheme;reports by Mr Newton and Mr Todd regarding Access to Work made further recommendations that were supportive of the claimant. In one such report Mr Todd recommended that the claimant undergo a “psychological assessment”. In a subsequent report Mr Newton recommended “psychological assessment for dyslexia and dyspraxia”. 

The claimant takes exception to what she perceived as a requirement for her to undergo psychological assessment which she says was pursued by the respondent specifically MP with a view to proving that she had a mental illness as opposed to the respondent’s being prepared to address her physical impairments with a view to making reasonable adjustments. 

The claimant’s suspicion is that the respondent wanted a psychological assessment to prove that she was unfit to work and to give an opportunity for dismissal based on incapability by reference to health.5.12.2 

SWC,on behalf of the respondent,felt that Mr Todd’s recommendation that the claimant should undergo psychological assessment was unusual and potentially inappropriate.  

SWC queried the recommendation on 30 November 2011 at page 279 with an Occupational Health advisor. The respondent had reservations about undertaking a psychological assessment of the claimant and did not see it was relevant, appropriate or beneficial.  

The respondent’s decision was to defer obtaining such an assessment. to obtain the second Occupational Health opinion from a Dr Baron as to the appropriateness or otherwise of such an assessment. No psychological assessment was undertaken.

She frequently and in fact regularly raised matters concerning working at Pwllheli with MP but she did not present any formal grievance.

Whilst MPH made the decision to suspend the claimant based on information she received from MP (and possibly also SWC) the decision was given to the claimant by MP in his role as line manager in the absence of MPH. 

Following the claimant’s suspension,the respondent attempted to investigate the claimant’s performance and Heidi Rylance carried out a partial investigation,reporting at page 548 on the 12 October 2014. That report is critical of the claimant and of management of the claimant with a lack of guidance and support.

MPH considered that she was too closely involved to lead any investigation into the claimant’s grievances for fear of being accused of having a conflict of interest. She sought to involve an independent investigator. 

She received feedback from a Ms S Maskell who reported on the difficulty due to complexity that would be encountered in undertaking an investigation into a grievance which was being seen as one against the entire department in which the clamant worked, up to and including MPH herself. 

We accept MPH’s evidence that whilst Ms Maskell’s written notes indicated that there were concerns regarding management as well as regard to the claimant she effectively reported to MPH that the task was too difficult to handle and that she would not do so. 

MPH then approached another independent consultant Ms B Allen who reported back that she would have to interview more than thirty-one individuals, that there was extensive documentation and that she did not have the time and resources to dedicate to the task. She refused the commission.

The respondent had qualms about the claimant’s continued employment even at the time of her suspension but as the period of suspension dragged on it concluded it did not want to have her back. The respondent’s management was not sure how to bring matters to a head and rather than grasp the nettle,or nip matters in the bud, they left it be for two and a half years whilst considering various options. 

 On 24 November 2015 based on legal advice received,and having canvassed the claimant’s Union representative, MPH wrote to the claimant (page 583) suggesting a “without prejudice” meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss “how your employment with Gwynedd Council could be brought to an end in what would be an acceptable manner to both you and us”. 

That was the respondent’s agenda. MPH considered that the parties had reached an “impasse” and she was clear that the employment relationship had been “irreparably damaged”. MPH accepted and appreciated that the claimant may not be of the same view. 

The SOSR agenda was investigated by Haf Ingman Jones and Stephen Wood and went to an SOSR hearing on 13 and 18 October 2016 before a panel comprising Aled Davis and E. Jones and A.Owen. The Tribunal heard evidence from Mr Aled Davies.  

The panel was provided with a statement from MPH which appears at pages 625 –627 in which MPH stated at paragraph 4 “the working relationship has broken down to an extent that termination of employment is the only feasible way forward”;she felt the claimant had made clear to her that the claimant would not discuss matters with MPH. 

This latter observation in MPH’s statement is a misattribution as it relates only to the claimant’s refusal to meet on a “without prejudice”basis to negotiate terms for terminationof employment. 

The claimant remained ready,able,and willing to deal first with her grievances and then with a capability issue and to return to work if possible and if it was not immediately so possible she was prepared to enter mediation. Throughout the SOSR primary hearing and appeal hearing the respondent’s view that termination was the only feasible way forward did not alter;on that basis,it was clear that MPH was not prepared to enter the mediation suggested by the claimant.

The SOSR primary panel concluded that dismissal was appropriate in view of MPH’s unwillingness to mediate and what it considered to be the claimant’s pre-condition that she would succeed with regard to her grievances including with regards to allegations that she was bullied. 

The Tribunal finds that the claimant did not insist on the respondent’s management upholding her grievance on all counts including bullying but she did wish,through the course of the mediation and or grievance procedure,for those complaints to be aired;she did not feel it was appropriate for the respondent to declare that her grievance was at an end when it had never been addressed. 

The claimant’s only requirement was the respondent’s adherence to Occupational Health and Access to Work recommendations in accordance with its statutory duty. Up to the date of termination of employment the claimant’s approach remained consistent indicating her belief and understanding that the relationship was surviving and could survive provided the respondent fulfilled its managerial responsibilities. 

Dismissal was outside the range of reasonable responses of a reasonable employer. 

We are not to, and have not, substituted our judgment for that of the respondent. A reasonable employer would follow its standard procedures in a timely fashion. The respondent did not do that,

The decision to dismiss the claimant in these circumstances was discrimination arising from disability."

The Report in full 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

What else goes on behind closed doors ?
Sshh....

Something is seriously wrong within Gwynedd Council.

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.

Disabled SW Suspended For 2.5 Years Wins Tribunal - Cyngor Gwynedd Council.

Gwynedd Social Services Senior Managers (again)

Disabled social worker's Employment Tribunal.

Corrected decision, Employment tribunal: unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, harassment of social worker by local authority employer ?

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

Cyngor #Gwynedd Council's Report Into Their #Data Breach 2018

I emailed Morwena Edwards, Corporate Director of Social Services, on the 19th March, 2018.

"We are also concerned that you have been aware of a Data Breach by your Department for nearly a year and no-one from the Council has been in contact with us. The Investigator has been provided with evidence of the Data Breach and she says so in her Report".

On the 29th March, we attended a meeting with an Information Manager at Gwynedd Council regarding us being given the names of children receiving services from the Council and Youth Justice team and to find out who censored our personal information (SAR) and whether the redactions were legal.
Copies of the names and local school that had been released by the department were presented to the Manager.

On the 22nd May, we had to return for another meeting as the Manager did not answer the questions in her initial Report and also misrepresented the physical and oral evidence we provided. There was also an issue with the Manager failing to respond to our emails but an apology was given for this.

The second meeting was attended by a Janet Roberts, who introduced herself as Corporate Support for the council. Mrs Roberts said very little during the meeting but did take note of the questions we wished to be answered by the person in the Children and Families Department who carried out the redactions to our personal information.

Now these questions were asked as part of our Stage 2 complaint first raised with the council in May, 2017 and was to have been answered by the Independent Investigator. 
Gwynedd council reported that the officer responsible for processing our SAR and for the redactions had left the Council and so was unable to be interviewed.

At this second meeting, Mrs Roberts informed us that the person who processed our SAR had indeed left the council but was then re-employed by the council and was NOW our named person within the Customer Care department dealing with another complaint.

Oh forgot to mention that the Investigation of the Data Breach was upheld. The release of the names of children receiving services should not have happened and the Report, June 2018, is as follows -
                                                                  *****************

I write with reference to your complaint to the Council and in particular part 6 which relates to data and information.

The outcomes from the independent investigators report was that:

The complainants seek an explanation for the censoring of their own information and whether or not it is legal to do so. They seek an explanation from Melvin Panther as to how he thought it in any way appropriate or professional to speak about them in such a derogatory manner to another professional working with the family. In relation to the information containing other children’s details, they wish for this to be dealt with via the Council’s information/data protection security policy and procedure.

I will treat these matters in turn:

1.      Censoring of information and redacted and unredacted emails.

Email dated 5^th of April 2016 10:48

You note that this had been provided to you in redacted and unredacted form and wish to know why it had been redacted.

The department have informed me that it was redacted because it was not thought appropriate to disclose at the time.

In my opinion this part of the email is your personal data since it relates to you and you can be identified by the information. There was no particular reason for it to be withheld and it should have been provided without redaction.

Email dated 27^th of June 2016 at 16:45

I have examined the part of this email which has been redacted.

I am satisfied that this part of the email has been redacted appropriately. Under the right of subject access, an individual is entitled only to their own personal data, and not to information relating to other people.

This part of the email relates to information relating to a third party, namely a social worker. Under section 7(4) of the Act an authority does not have to comply with a request if to do so would mean disclosing information about another individual who can be identified from that information except where the individual has consented or it is reasonable in all the circumstances to comply with the request without that consent.

There was no consent in this case nor was it reasonable to comply without consent.

Email dated 5^th of July 2016 at 13:30

I have examined the part of the email which has been redacted.

As above, this information does not relate to you but to a social worker. It therefore does not constitute your personal data. As such, it was appropriate for the information to be withheld in accordance with the reasoning outlined above.

Email dated 13^th of July 2016 at 10:14

I have examined the part of the email which has been redacted.

I believe that this email should have been provided to you as it relates to you and is therefore your personal data.

2.   An explanation from Mel Panther

As noted in previous correspondence, it is not within my remit to comment on the actions of another member of staff.

3.      Emails containing other children’s details

I have examined the emails you provided me in this respect.

In a series of emails between two members of staff in January 2016 the names of children appear in the subject headings.

For a data breach to occur, the information in question must be personal data i.e. it must relate to an individual and allow them to be identified from the information.

In this case, it is not clear that a surname together with the name of a school would enable identification of an individual. However, the information confirms that the child is a child a need, which is sensitive information in itself.

It should also be noted that the name of this child had been redacted from the main text of an email in one instance and therefore there was a recognition that this was indeed third party personal data.

The name of another child also appears in the subject line of the same series of emails. This time there is a name and surname, which makes identification more likely. Again the information confirms that the child is a child in need, which is sensitive information in itself.

Having further considered the Information Commissioner’s Office guidance on determining what is personal data, which notes that someone can be identified from information we hold or ‘the means that could be used by a sufficiently determined and interested person’, I have concluded that on the balance of probabilities, this was personal data and therefore did constitute a data breach.

Therefore, the names should have been removed from the subject line of the emails before being disclosed to you as part of the subject access request.

At our meeting on the 23^rd of May 2018, you asked some further questions which have been addressed below:

4.         Who made the decision to redact both emails?

In her role as the Information Officer, Angharad Hywel would in cases such as this routinely meet with her line manager at the time, Margaret Kenealy Jones to check the information which was to be shared. If she felt that some details noted within the information should be redacted, these  would be identified and advice would be sought from her line manager. In this specific case, she met with her line manager to read through the information which was to be disclosed. During this meeting they discussed some documents which were deemed to contain information which could be misinterpreted or could impact the working relationship between the family and the Service. The officer received guidance in relation to redacting these documents.

5.         Who asked for them to be redacted?

A decision was made between the Officer and the line manager at the time to redact the sentences in the email dated 5th April 2016 and the email dated 13^th of July 2016.

6.         Did they consult with anybody?

No other officers were consulted.

7.         What were the reasons for the redaction?

Having read the redacted sentences in the emails dated 5 April 2016 and 13^th July 2016, the Officer was of the opinion that these statements were the personal opinion about the family and that disclosing them could undermine the attempts to maintain a working relationship between the Service and the family. At the time of this Subject Access Request, and particularly during the timeframe in which this decision was taken, the Service had responded to a number of complaints and many of these were related to difficulties in the working relationship between the family and Mel Panther. It was imperative at this time, and in fact continues to be the case, that efforts were made to maintain a good working relationship between the Service and the family as the Service was focused on trying to ensure that *child* was provided with an assessment of his needs to ensure the best outcome for him.

Moving on to other points made in your email dated the 8^th of June 2018, I would note that no procedures have been broken in terms of the redactions made. The usual procedure for dealing with a subject access request had been followed, ie, information was collated, advice was sought regarding redaction, redaction was carried out and information that was disclosable was disclosed.

It is noted that a breach did occur, but this was due to an oversight, and was low risk in terms of the amount of personal information disclosed.   

  As I stated during our meeting, the question regarding the legality of the redactions is not one I can answer. The redactions were carried out in good faith for the reasons given above. Redacting information is necessarily a subjective task and does, and indeed, can vary from person to person.

In terms of a data breach, the matter will be dealt with via the usual procedure, which is that a report is prepared for the Council’s SIRO (Senior Information Risk Owner) Group.

I will remind the departments regarding the need to take particular care at all times with future subject access requests.

I am sorry that I am unable to add anything further regarding this matter – if you wish to take the matter further you may contact the ICO, whose details are noted below:

https://ico.org.uk/concerns/ or ring them on 0303 123 1113.

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

Anyone else spot the contradictions ?
 
More worryingly, the report states it was the two information officers alone who made the decision to redact but goes on to state the "question regarding the legality of the redactions is not one I can answer."

An Official Report, written by an Information Manager, aided by Corporate Support with access to the entire Legal department at Gwynedd council can not answer to the legality of their Officers actions.
Hmm.

The SAR also reveals that one manager within the council would like to blame us for not reporting the Data Breach earlier.

The Data Breach was part of my complaint first raised with the council on the 25th May, 2017.
How did the council respond ?

See post - https://gwyneddsfailingcouncil.blogspot.com/2017/05/gwynedd-council-respond-to-my-complaint.html

They were all on holiday.

Gwynedd Council Maladministration 2018.

On the 16th March, 2018, Gwynedd Council's Corporate Director and Head of Social Services, Morwena Edwards, finally responded to our Stage 2 Complaint, nearly 5 months after the completed Report was received by the Council.

The entire process has taken over 10 months to conclude - a process that according to Gwynedd's Statutory Policy should take 28 days.

Our complaint(s) were upheld by the 'Independent' Investigator and her Report - twice sanitised by the Council - still makes for some very interesting reading. But that is for another time.

The Data Breach and censoring of our personal information are currently being investigated as a separate complaint by Gwynedd's Information department. But we have now been told that the Manager is not able to deal with the issue of a senior manager, Melvin Panther, writing disparaging comments about the family to other agencies - so our complaint in this respect is still not concluded.

The official response from the Council is signed off by Morwena Edwards and she attempts to totally whitewash the highly critical Report into her department.

According to the Welsh Government Guidelines on Social Services Complaints, the Council were obliged to offer to meet with us to discuss the report and their response. They have not offered a meeting and as we have yet again been denied the opportunity to discuss the report and their response to it, we wrote in response to the Council.

We pointed out that the Children and Family department attempts to gloss over the systemic failings uncovered by the 'Independent' Investigator and still seek to blame anyone but themselves.

Social Workers and other Council Officers admit that the child's case was allowed 'to drift'.

Our reply to the Corporate Director(s) was that her response is nonsensical and farcical and disregards the failure of Social Workers and the appalling state of record keeping within the Children's department.

During this time, the Ombudsman for Wales has also been investigating Gwynedd Council.

Their Report upholds all our complaints and highlights maladministration and service failure by Gwynedd Social Services going as far back as 2010.

Yet this time Gwynedd Council have held up their hands to the Ombudman's Report and agreed to implement all the recommendations made - including certain officers being retrained in respect of the Council adhering to their Statutory Duties.

The Council would have received the Ombudsman's Report early last week. They have still not contacted us.

Something is so badly wrong within Gwynedd Council.

Complaint Against Gwynedd Council - Three Become One.

It is now 12 weeks since Cyngor Gwynedd council received the 'Independent Report' into our Stage 2 complaint first raised in May, 2017, as advised by the Ombudsman for Wales.

The council continue to ignore our requests for a copy of the Report and refuse to say whether our 6 points of complaint have been upheld by the Investigator.

The previous posts have given details of two points - of six - of our complaint and may go someway to explain Gwynedd's Children and Family Support Department's seeming reluctance to share the report with ourselves.

Due to the limitations I have in publicising this case and the way the Independent Investigator has written the complaint it is easier to discuss the next three points as one.

All three points of complaint reference the input of Senior Social Worker, Delyth Davies, who was assigned to carry out a Core Assessment of Needs on a diagnosed Autistic child with PDA and other complex issues.
 
The complaint contends that the Core assessment does not reflect the needs of the child and totally ignores the fact the child has needs relating to independence, socialisation and self-care skills, the child also has S.E.N. It states that all the child's needs are met by parents and education, but with no regard for the future and what the needs and possible limitations may be as the child enters adulthood.

I have been involved in Assessments in the past - assessing the elderly for dementia and related care needs - and in my professional opinion the assessment undertaken by Delyth Davies was 'inadequate' to say the least.

Delyth Davies was questioned by the parents why the assessment considered the child to have no 'disability', she acted surprised and stated that it was a mistake. When asked if she would then put right her 'mistake', she said she could not answer at that time, due to having to speak with her managers first. Those managers are Sharron Carter Williams and Melvin Panther.

Delyth Davies had asked for additional information to be sent electronically to her as she stated she could only add information and amend things on the computer and she couldn't just 'dip in and out of it'.

My wife duly scanned and sent copies to Delyth Davies electronically for this purpose, as she was asked. No changes were made.

Information provided by parents and a Tutor were 'filed' instead of being included in the Core Assessment as promised, nor was a change made to the Core Assessment to state that the child was considered disabled.

The complaint also asks Delyth Davies, for an explanation of why she thought it appropriate to send an email regarding our complaint to someone not being part of or involved, in any way, with the complaint.

I have sighted the email and I read it as being written for one reason only - to maliciously cause trouble for my wife. Hopefully, the social worker's explanation when finally released will assure me this is not the case.

Censoring Of Personal Information By Cyngor Gwynedd Council.

It is the end of another week and Gwynedd Council continue to remain silent in regards to the Independent Investigator's Report into our Stage 2 complaint raised in May, last year, on the advice of the Ombudsman for Wales and so I am placing the second point of our complaint on to the blog.

It involves censoring of personal information obtained under a SAR (subject access request) and a Data breach. 

Data & Information:  The complainants have been provided with an email by Gwynedd County Council which had been partially censored. They believe that there was no legitimate reason to censor the information as there were no third party information within the email, and they believe that the censored narrative was an attempt to prevent them from reading disparaging comments about them by Mel Panther to a professional in the education department.

The complainants were also given emails which contained information shared between professionals relating to other children, which was their personal information and a clear breach of data protection and confidentiality.
                                              ***************************
The complaint says it all really and our desired outcome was -

The complainants seek an explanation for the censoring of their own information, and whether or not it is legal to do so. They seek an explanation from Melvin panther as to how he thought it in any way appropriate or professional to speak about them in such a derogatory manner to another professional working with the family.
In relation to the information containing other children’s details, they wish for this to be dealt with via the Council’s information/Data protection security policy & procedure.

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

There are at least four (4) emails that have been censored by a black marker pen.

All of the censored emails were sent by Melvin Panther, a senior manager in Gwynedd Children and Family Support department.

Now I am not suggesting that Mr Panther censored his own emails, which we were the subject of, because everyone who works in the Care sector has to sign the Data Protection Act and it will have been made very clear to them at the time that altering records or other peoples information, in any way, is a criminal offence.

But someone did indeed censor our personal information, we believe, in attempt to cover up the disparaging remarks made by Melvin Panther. So who ?
I have sighted the response by the Education department to Mr Panther and I read it as a polite slap down so my thanks to that Education officer.

Melvin Panther is a Manager of the social worker, Jamie Haydon, named in the point of complaint discussed in the previous post.

The Data breach involves sending us the name(s) of children receiving support from the council and also names the school the child attends.

A Missing Letter, An MP And A Support Team(!). Gwynedd.

And a quick recap....

A stage 2 complaint from 2010 showing serious failings in the Children and Families Department at Cyngor Gwynedd was upheld by Independent Investigators.

From 2014, meetings and decisions made concerning a child's future were being held behind closed doors by managers and a social worker without the knowledge of the parents or professionals involved in the case.
Worse was the fact that a social worker and other professionals were being ignored....as they did not feel the child's needs were being met,

A social worker who acted without thought for the code of ethics that he has agreed to uphold.
Or worse - a social worker who has been instructed by managers to behave so....inappropriately and against the interests of a vulnerable child - the client.
The jury is still out.

A failure of the children and families department to deliver the services granted by Gwynedd social services and when they finally appeared - after having their arm twisted by a solicitor - were shockingly bad.

So bad that a complaint was raised and which Aled Gibbard closed  - against statutory policy - and also without informing anyone !?!?

Kenealy Jones - you said a search was made for the letter to Mr Gibbard he claims he never received. Did you look in the bins ?

I have sighted your email to your colleague, Aled, voicing your concern about where this case could go.

The service(!) provided involved the support worker - yes him of the grunts and no feedback - leaving the client alone in a car when he attended to his own bits and pieces.
You did read the risk assessment, Iolo - yes ?
Is it council policy to leave clients alone when in their care ?

All of this even before I asked the #Plaid_Cymru MP, Liz Saville Roberts for support.
Liz, who shook my hand, looked me in the eye and said "vote for me... and contact me if you ever need help".

MP's tut - some of them will say anything to get your vote.

Cyngor Gwynedd - Problem With Management.

So where were we ?

Ah yes - I cancelled the meeting with the social worker.

The partner had become ill with the stress and nastiness of it all and my daughter had just suffered a miscarriage - all this and dealing with the light and dark side of PDA - it was a relief to use the time to calm down and think...

The social worker turned up anyway.

Lowri Williams, customer care(!) wrote later "...the Service felt that cancelling the meeting was not appropriate,"

Mr Haydon also wrote a report to his managers describing the meeting with me.

Jamie, I have seen a copy of your report and I hardly recognise your version of events.
Will the report be updated to include how you foot shuffled and spent most of our exchange staring at the floor like a scoolboy , mumbling -
"You haven't made a complaint about me, have you ?"

Will you update the report to include the fact that your managers, Melvin Panther and Sharron Williams Carter sent you to my house knowing that I had raised issues with your bad behaviour and the meeting cancelled - without informing you ?

Do you think that is "appropriate" behaviour from your managers, Jamie ?

Jamie, in your report you call me 'agitated' when I answered the door - that was a mixture of horror and anger at your presence until I realised that you had been set up.

What manager would send an employee out to visit someone who was upset and not even advise them ?
Were they hoping for confrontation ?

http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2014/09/16/violence-social-workers-just-part-job-70-incidents-investigated/

Have you raised an issue with #Unison that your managers put you in an impossible situation with little regard for your safety ?

I remember saying to you "Jamie, contact your managers. Something weird is going on."

You whispered that you have to wait for them to get in touch.

#Shocking -  from you, Jamie, and your managers.

Cyngor Gwynedd have refused my right to make an official complaint about the incident.