Accepting the Ombudsman for Wales offer of a third investigation into cyngor Gwynedd was a mistake.
Yet again, the 'remit' for investigation was a bone of contention.
So much evidence of continued bad behaviour by officers was not to be investigated, nor action taken over non compliance as the Ombudsman had signed this off as completed - when it was not. Farcical.
A reminder that the child's diagnosis of autism was repeatedly ignored by Gwynedd's Derwen manager and was not allowed to be taken into account by social workers in either care assessment. Social workers said that they had not accessed and read the the child's files and were not interested in the family history, preferring they said to 'take it from here'. The second care assessment carried out on the orders of the Ombudsman appeared to morph into a safeguarding issue of a neurotypical child and an exercise in parent bashing...
The Ombudsman appeared not to take full regard of the child's diagnosis of autism either and when challenged by the family who cited another case for comparison, the Ombudsman warned that cases should not be compared. Of course not, but the fact remains one child's diagnosis appeared to be treated differently from another.
Reading through past investigation reports and FOI's to both organisations reveal council officers who apologise, sometimes even sincerely, and then ignore agreements made. The Ombudsman's acceptance of variances to its recommendations without complainants knowledge is also insulting after such lengthy and costly investigations.
The Ombudsman then submitted its preferred 'remit' to cyngor Gwynedd without the complainant's approval or knowledge. The complainants were not happy and a 'pause' to the complaint was asked of the Ombudsman while a Subject Access Request was submitted to its information office seeking its correspondence with the council. The Ombudsman agreed to the delay...
A SAR had also been submitted to cyngor Gwynedd and whilst the council's Information office had dealt fairly with previous requests, it now produced pages of censored content...
Part of an email thread does show officers discussing waylaying the child at their place of education - without parents knowledge. Would this be an attempt to get the child to agree to something so the third investigation could be
halted? The same council officers who have a history of fake assessments, interference in investigations, bullying staff and writing reports in spite of the evidence and an autistic child with complex issues. How desperate were senior officers to even contemplate this...?
A reminder that Gwynedd SS department had been investigated previously by the Ombudsman and hauled over the coals for similar tactics in the case of an autistic man in residential care who had their services removed. The case involved officers speaking with the man alone without family members or support. Using a person's disability against them...?
As usual, the SS department apologised for their behaviour but recommendations from this case were also not complied with though the Ombudsman has signed this off as completed albeit with another variance. Extra training in ASD for staff was accepted by the Ombudsman instead of the required review of services. There is no public record of this training or how many attended...
The Ombudsman's Information office did comply with part of the SAR but did not release documentation between themselves and the council adding further doubt to the impartiality of the Ombudsman.
Cyngor Gwynedd. who had released dialogue between the Ombudsman in a previous case now refused. An internal review was requested where the reviewing officer claimed that the Ombudsman had discussion with the council to not disclose information in this case. For obvious reasons, the officer was not believed and challenged to provide the evidence. The letter from the Ombudsman to the council was released to the family...
The Ombudsman is independent, impartial and fair - it says that on its website, nor does it advise either party.
When challenged, the Ombudsman explained that the correspondence was not 'advice' but merely their response to a council's query. The response was very detailed and information passed between the two organisations in how the council deal with the SAR, for 'transparency' and 'consistency' as the Ombudsman advised. A reminder that the Ombudsman was not the data controller in this instance...
During this time, the Ombudsman had become impatient and demanded a decision be made to accept the 'remit' or the complaint would be closed. The 'remit' was not accepted by the complainants and the Ombudsman closed the case.
Something is very wrong with the complaints process in Wales...
